ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024
Word sense disambiguation of acronyms in clinical narratives.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical narratives commonly use acronyms without explicitly defining their long forms. This makes it difficult to automatically interpret their sense as acronyms tend to be highly ambiguous. Supervised learning approaches to their disambiguation in the clinical domain are hindered by issues associated with patient privacy and manual annotation, which limit the size and diversity of training data. In this study, we demonstrate how scientific abstracts can be utilised to overcome these issues by creating a large automatically annotated dataset of artificially simulated global acronyms. A neural network trained on such a dataset achieved the F1-score of 95% on disambiguation of acronym mentions in scientific abstracts. This network was integrated with multi-word term recognition to extract a sense inventory of acronyms from a corpus of clinical narratives on the fly. Acronym sense extraction achieved the F1-score of 74% on a corpus of radiology reports. In clinical practice, the suggested approach can be used to facilitate development of institution-specific inventories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.