ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2024
Annotation of epilepsy clinic letters for natural language processing.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural language processing (NLP) is increasingly being used to extract structured information from unstructured text to assist clinical decision-making and aid healthcare research. The availability of expert-annotated documents for the development and validation of NLP applications is limited. We created synthetic clinical documents to address this, and to validate the Extraction of Epilepsy Clinical Text version 2 (ExECTv2) NLP pipeline.
methodsWe created 200 synthetic clinic letters based on hospital outpatient consultations with epilepsy specialists. The letters were double annotated by trained clinicians and researchers according to agreed guidelines. We used the annotation tool, Markup, with an epilepsy concept list based on the Unified Medical Language System ontology. All annotations were reviewed, and a gold standard set of annotations was agreed and used to validate the performance of ExECTv2.
resultsThe overall inter-annotator agreement (IAA) between the two sets of annotations produced a per item F1 score of 0.73. Validating ExECTv2 using the gold standard gave an overall F1 score of 0.87 per item, and 0.90 per letter.
conclusionThe synthetic letters, annotations, and annotation guidelines have been made freely available. To our knowledge, this is the first publicly available set of annotated epilepsy clinic letters and guidelines that can be used for NLP researchers with minimum epilepsy knowledge. The IAA results show that clinical text annotation tasks are difficult and require a gold standard to be arranged by researcher consensus. The results for ExECTv2, our automated epilepsy NLP pipeline, extracted detailed epilepsy information from unstructured epilepsy letters with more accuracy than human annotators, further confirming the utility of NLP for clinical and research applications.
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.