Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38596859›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Impact of Translation on Biomedical Information Extraction: Experiment on Real-Life Clinical Notes.

Christel Gérardin, Yuhan Xiong, Perceval Wajsbürt, Fabrice Carrat, Xavier Tannier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Christel GérardinInstitut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Sorbonne Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9303-6349
Yuhan XiongInstitut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Sorbonne Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-3731-4798
Perceval WajsbürtInnovation and Data Unit, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9746-9993
Fabrice CarratInstitut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Sorbonne Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8672-7918
Xavier Tannier5, Sorbonne Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Université Sorbonne Paris-Nord, Laboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et de Connaissance en e-Santé, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2452-8868

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Biomedical natural language processing tasks are best performed with English models, and translation tools have undergone major improvements. On the other hand, building annotated biomedical data sets remains a challenge. Objective: The aim of our study is to determine whether the use of English tools to extract and normalize French medical concepts based on translations provides comparable performance to that of French models trained on a set of annotated French clinical notes. Methods: We compared 2 methods: 1 involving French-language models and 1 involving English-language models. For the native French method, the named entity recognition and normalization steps were performed separately. For the translated English method, after the first translation step, we compared a 2-step method and a terminology-oriented method that performs extraction and normalization at the same time. We used French, English, and bilingual annotated data sets to evaluate all stages (named entity recognition, normalization, and translation) of our algorithms. Results: The native French method outperformed the translated English method, with an overall F1-score of 0.51 (95% CI 0.47-0.55), compared with 0.39 (95% CI 0.34-0.44) and 0.38 (95% CI 0.36-0.40) for the 2 English methods tested. Conclusions: Despite recent improvements in translation models, there is a significant difference in performance between the 2 approaches in favor of the native French method, which is more effective on French medical texts, even with few annotated documents.

Indexed as

bilingual language modelbiomedical data setconcept normalizationnamed entity recognitionnatural language processingtranslationtranslational tool

Identifiers

PMID38596859
PMCPMC11007378

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.