Search

Background Controlled vocabularies are fundamental resources for information extraction from clinical texts using natural language processing (NLP). Standard language resources available in the healthcare domain such as the UMLS metathesaurus or SNOMED CT are widely used for this purpose, but with limitations such as lexical ambiguity of clinical terms. However, most of them are unambiguous within text limited to a given clinical specialty. This is one rationale besides others to classify clinical text by the clinical specialty to which they belong. Results This paper addresses this limitation by proposing and applying a method that automatically extracts Spanish medical terms classified and weighted per sub-domain, using Spanish MEDLINE titles and abstracts as input. The hypothesis is biomedical NLP tasks benefit from collections of domain terms that are specific to clinical subdomains. We use PubMed queries that generate sub-domain specific corpora from Spanish titles and abstracts, from which token n-grams are collected and metrics of relevance, discriminatory power, and broadness per sub-domain are computed. The generated term set, called Spanish core vocabulary about clinical specialties (SCOVACLIS), was made available to the scientific community and used in a text classification problem obtaining improvements of 6 percentage points in the F-measure compared to the baseline using Multilayer Perceptron, thus demonstrating the hypothesis that a specialized term set improves NLP tasks. Conclusion The creation and validation of SCOVACLIS support the hypothesis that specific term sets reduce the level of ambiguity when compared to a specialty-independent and broad-scope vocabulary.

Background Automated methods for identifying clinically relevant new versus redundant information in electronic health record (EHR) clinical notes is useful for clinicians and researchers involved in patient care and clinical research, respectively. We evaluated methods to automatically identify clinically relevant new information in clinical notes, and compared the quantity of redundant information across specialties and clinical settings. Methods Statistical language models augmented with semantic similarity measures were evaluated as a means to detect and quantify clinically relevant new and redundant information over longitudinal clinical notes for a given patient. A corpus of 591 progress notes over 40 inpatient admissions was annotated for new information longitudinally by physicians to generate a reference standard. Note redundancy between various specialties was evaluated on 71,021 outpatient notes and 64,695 inpatient notes from 500 solid organ transplant patients (April 2015 through August 2015). Results Our best method achieved at best performance of 0.87 recall, 0.62 precision, and 0.72 F-measure. Addition of semantic similarity metrics compared to baseline improved recall but otherwise resulted in similar performance. While outpatient and inpatient notes had relatively similar levels of high redundancy (61% and 68%, respectively), redundancy differed by author specialty with mean redundancy of 75%, 66%, 57%, and 55% observed in pediatric, internal medicine, psychiatry and surgical notes, respectively. Conclusions Automated techniques with statistical language models for detecting redundant versus clinically relevant new information in clinical notes do not improve with the addition of semantic similarity measures. While levels of redundancy seem relatively similar in the inpatient and ambulatory settings in the Fairview Health Services, clinical note redundancy appears to vary significantly with different medical specialties.