Extracting information from the text of electronic medical records to improve case detection: a systematic review

Background: Electronic medical records (EMRs) are revolutionizing health-related research. One key issue for study quality is the accurate identification of patients with the condition of interest. Information in EMRs can be entered as structured codes or unstructured free text. The majority of research studies have used only coded parts of EMRs for case-detection, which may bias findings, miss cases, and reduce study quality. This review examines whether incorporating information from text into case-detection algorithms can improve research quality. Methods: A systematic search returned 9659 papers, 67 of which reported on the extraction of information from free text of EMRs with the stated purpose of detecting cases of a named clinical condition. Methods for extracting information from text and the technical accuracy of case-detection algorithms were reviewed. Results: Studies mainly used US hospital-based EMRs, and extracted information from text for 41 conditions using keyword searches, rule-based algorithms, and machine learning methods. There was no clear difference in case-detection algorithm accuracy between rule-based and machine learning methods of extraction. Inclusion of information from text resulted in a significant improvement in algorithm sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic in comparison to codes alone (median sensitivity 78% (codes + text) vs 62% (codes), P = .03; median area under the receiver operating characteristic 95% (codes + text) vs 88% (codes), P = .025). Conclusions: Text in EMRs is accessible, especially with open source information extraction algorithms, and significantly improves case detection when combined with codes. More harmonization of reporting within EMR studies is needed, particularly standardized reporting of algorithm accuracy metrics like positive predictive value (precision) and sensitivity (recall)

J Biomed Inform

We followed a systematic approach based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to identify existing clinical natural language processing (NLP) systems that generate structured information from unstructured free text. Seven literature databases were searched with a query combining the concepts of natural language processing and structured data capture. Two reviewers screened all records for relevance during two screening phases, and information about clinical NLP systems was collected from the final set of papers. A total of 7149 records (after removing duplicates) were retrieved and screened, and 86 were determined to fit the review criteria. These papers contained information about 71 different clinical NLP systems, which were then analyzed. The NLP systems address a wide variety of important clinical and research tasks. Certain tasks are well addressed by the existing systems, while others remain as open challenges that only a small number of systems attempt, such as extraction of temporal information or normalization of concepts to standard terminologies. This review has identified many NLP systems capable of processing clinical free text and generating structured output, and the information collected and evaluated here will be important for prioritizing development of new approaches for clinical NLP.CC999999/ImCDC/Intramural CDC HHS/United States2019-11-20T00:00:00Z28729030PMC6864736694

A cascade of classifiers for extracting medication information from discharge summaries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Extracting medication information from clinical records has many potential applications, and recently published research, systems, and competitions reflect an interest therein. Much of the early extraction work involved rules and lexicons, but more recently machine learning has been applied to the task.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We present a hybrid system consisting of two parts. The first part, field detection, uses a cascade of statistical classifiers to identify medication-related named entities. The second part uses simple heuristics to link those entities into medication events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The system achieved performance that is comparable to other approaches to the same task. This performance is further improved by adding features that reference external medication name lists.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study demonstrates that our hybrid approach outperforms purely statistical or rule-based systems. The study also shows that a cascade of classifiers works better than a single classifier in extracting medication information. The system is available as is upon request from the first author.</p

Clinical text data in machine learning: Systematic review

Background: Clinical narratives represent the main form of communication within healthcare providing a personalized account of patient history and assessments, offering rich information for clinical decision making. Natural language processing (NLP) has repeatedly demonstrated its feasibility to unlock evidence buried in clinical narratives. Machine learning can facilitate rapid development of NLP tools by leveraging large amounts of text data. Objective: The main aim of this study is to provide systematic evidence on the properties of text data used to train machine learning approaches to clinical NLP. We also investigate the types of NLP tasks that have been supported by machine learning and how they can be applied in clinical practice. Methods: Our methodology was based on the guidelines for performing systematic reviews. In August 2018, we used PubMed, a multi-faceted interface, to perform a literature search against MEDLINE. We identified a total of 110 relevant studies and extracted information about the text data used to support machine learning, the NLP tasks supported and their clinical applications. The data properties considered included their size, provenance, collection methods, annotation and any relevant statistics. Results: The vast majority of datasets used to train machine learning models included only hundreds or thousands of documents. Only 10 studies used tens of thousands of documents with a handful of studies utilizing more. Relatively small datasets were utilized for training even when much larger datasets were available. The main reason for such poor data utilization is the annotation bottleneck faced by supervised machine learning algorithms. Active learning was explored to iteratively sample a subset of data for manual annotation as a strategy for minimizing the annotation effort while maximizing predictive performance of the model. Supervised learning was successfully used where clinical codes integrated with free text notes into electronic health records were utilized as class labels. Similarly, distant supervision was used to utilize an existing knowledge base to automatically annotate raw text. Where manual annotation was unavoidable, crowdsourcing was explored, but it remains unsuitable due to sensitive nature of data considered. Beside the small volume, training data were typically sourced from a small number of institutions, thus offering no hard evidence about the transferability of machine learning models. The vast majority of studies focused on the task of text classification. Most commonly, the classification results were used to support phenotyping, prognosis, care improvement, resource management and surveillance. Conclusions: We identified the data annotation bottleneck as one of the key obstacles to machine learning approaches in clinical NLP. Active learning and distant supervision were explored as a way of saving the annotation efforts. Future research in this field would benefit from alternatives such as data augmentation and transfer learning, or unsupervised learning, which does not require data annotation