4.7 Article

Automatic generation of textual summaries from neonatal intensive care data

期刊

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
卷 173, 期 7-8, 页码 789-816

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2008.12.002

关键词

Natural language generation; Intelligent data analysis; Intensive care unit; Decision support systems

资金

  1. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/D049520/1, EP/D05057X/1]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/D05057X/1, EP/D049520/1, EP/E011764/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. EPSRC [EP/E011764/1, EP/D05057X/1, EP/D049520/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective presentation of data for decision support is a major issue when large volumes of data are generated as happens in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Although the most common approach is to present the data graphically, it has been shown that textual summarisation can lead to improved decision making. As part of the BabyTalk project, we present a prototype, called BT-45, which generates textual summaries of about 45 minutes of continuous physiological signals and discrete events (e.g.: equipment settings and drug administration). Its architecture brings together techniques from the different areas of signal processing, medical reasoning, knowledge engineering, and natural language generation. A clinical off-ward experiment in a Neonatal ICU (NICU) showed that human expert textual descriptions of NICU data lead to better decision making than classical graphical visualisation, whereas texts generated by BT-45 lead to similar quality decision-making as visualisations. Textual analysis showed that BT-45 texts were inferior to human expert texts in a number of ways, including not reporting temporal information as well and not producing good narratives. Despite these deficiencies, our work shows that it is possible for computer systems to generate effective textual Summaries of complex continuous and discrete temporal clinical data. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据