Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37383943›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2023

Inter-rater agreement for the annotation of neurologic signs and symptoms in electronic health records.

Chelsea Oommen, Quentin Howlett-Prieto, Michael D Carrithers, Daniel B Hier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chelsea OommenDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Quentin Howlett-PrietoDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Michael D CarrithersDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Daniel B HierDepartment of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

BLRD VA I01 BX000467
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extraction of patient signs and symptoms recorded as free text in electronic health records is critical for precision medicine. Once extracted, signs and symptoms can be made computable by mapping to signs and symptoms in an ontology. Extracting signs and symptoms from free text is tedious and time-consuming. Prior studies have suggested that inter-rater agreement for clinical concept extraction is low. We have examined inter-rater agreement for annotating neurologic concepts in clinical notes from electronic health records. After training on the annotation process, the annotation tool, and the supporting neuro-ontology, three raters annotated 15 clinical notes in three rounds. Inter-rater agreement between the three annotators was high for text span and category label. A machine annotator based on a convolutional neural network had a high level of agreement with the human annotators but one that was lower than human inter-rater agreement. We conclude that high levels of agreement between human annotators are possible with appropriate training and annotation tools. Furthermore, more training examples combined with improvements in neural networks and natural language processing should make machine annotators capable of high throughput automated clinical concept extraction with high levels of agreement with human annotators.

Indexed as

annotationclinical concept extractionelectronic health recordsinter-rater agreementnatural language processingneural networksphenotypesigns and symptoms

Identifiers

PMID37383943
PMCPMC10294690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.