ArticleDigital health
Unsupervised SapBERT-based bi-encoders for medical concept annotation of clinical narratives with SNOMED CT.
Article in Digital health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Clinical narratives provide comprehensive patient information. Achieving interoperability involves mapping relevant details to standardized medical vocabularies. Typically, natural language processing divides this task into named entity recognition (NER) and medical concept normalization (MCN). State-of-the-art results require supervised setups with abundant training data. However, the limited availability of annotated data due to sensitivity and time constraints poses challenges. This study addressed the need for unsupervised medical concept annotation (MCA) to overcome these limitations and support the creation of annotated datasets. Method: We use an unsupervised SapBERT-based bi-encoder model to analyze n-grams from narrative text and measure their similarity to SNOMED CT concepts. At the end, we apply a syntactical re-ranker. For evaluation, we use the semantic tags of SNOMED CT candidates to assess the NER phase and their concept IDs to assess the MCN phase. The approach is evaluated with both English and German narratives. Result: Without training data, our unsupervised approach achieves an F1 score of 0.765 in English and 0.557 in German for MCN. Evaluation at the semantic tag level reveals that "disorder" has the highest F1 scores, 0.871 and 0.648 on English and German datasets. Furthermore, the MCA approach on the semantic tag "disorder" shows F1 scores of 0.839 and 0.696 in English and 0.685 and 0.437 in German for NER and MCN, respectively. Conclusion: This unsupervised approach demonstrates potential for initial annotation (pre-labeling) in manual annotation tasks. While promising for certain semantic tags, challenges remain, including false positives, contextual errors, and variability of clinical language, requiring further fine-tuning.
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.