4.6 Article

Mining heart disease risk factors in clinical text with named entity recognition and distributional semantic models

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 S143-S149

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.08.009

关键词

Biomedical text mining; Clinical informatics; Translational research; Natural language processing; Named entity recognition; Distributional semantic models; Heart disease risk factors; Diabetes

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health [8UL1TR000055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the design, and analyze the performance of a multi-stage natural language processing system employing named entity recognition, Bayesian statistics, and rule logic to identify and characterize heart disease risk factor events in diabetic patients over time. The system was originally developed for the 2014 i2b2 Challenges in Natural Language in Clinical Data. The system's strengths included a high level of accuracy for identifying named entities associated with heart disease risk factor events. The system's primary weakness was due to inaccuracies when characterizing the attributes of some events. For example, determining the relative time of an event with respect to the record date, whether an event is attributable to the patient's history or the patient's family history, and differentiating between current and prior smoking status. We believe these inaccuracies were due in large part to the lack of an effective approach for integrating context into our event detection model. To address these inaccuracies, we explore the addition of a distributional semantic model for characterizing contextual evidence of heart disease risk factor events. Using this semantic model, we raise our initial 2014 i2b2 Challenges in Natural Language of Clinical data F1 score of 0.838 to 0.890 and increased precision by 10.3% without use of any lexicons that might bias our results. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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