4.6 Article

Using clinical Natural Language Processing for health outcomes research: Overview and actionable suggestions for future advances

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 11-19

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.10.005

关键词

Natural Language Processing; Information extraction; Text analytics; Evaluation; Clinical informatics; Mental Health Informatics; Epidemiology; Public Health

资金

  1. European Science Foundation (ESF)
  2. Swedish Research Council [2015-00359]
  3. Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions [INCA 600398]
  4. Clinician Scientist Fellowship (research project e-HOST-IT) from the Health Foundation
  5. Academy of Medical Sciences
  6. Medical Research Council (MRC) Clinical Research Training Fellowship [MR/L017105/1]
  7. Wellcome Trust Seed Award in Science [109823/Z/15/Z]
  8. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London
  9. National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
  10. NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames at Bart's Health NHS Trust
  11. Alan Turing Institute
  12. EPSRC [EP/N027280/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  13. MRC [MC_PC_17214, MR/L017105/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  14. Wellcome Trust [109823/Z/15/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The importance of incorporating Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods in clinical informatics research has been increasingly recognized over the past years, and has led to transformative advances. Typically, clinical NLP systems are developed and evaluated on word, sentence, or document level annotations that model specific attributes and features, such as document content (e.g., patient status, or report type), document section types (e.g., current medications, past medical history, or discharge summary), named entities and concepts (e.g., diagnoses, symptoms, or treatments) or semantic attributes (e.g., negation, severity, or temporality). From a clinical perspective, on the other hand, research studies are typically modelled and evaluated on a patient-or population-level, such as predicting how a patient group might respond to specific treatments or patient monitoring over time. While some NLP tasks consider predictions at the individual or group user level, these tasks still constitute a minority. Owing to the discrepancy between scientific objectives of each field, and because of differences in methodological evaluation priorities, there is no clear alignment between these evaluation approaches. Here we provide a broad summary and outline of the challenging issues involved in defining appropriate intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation methods for NLP research that is to be used for clinical outcomes research, and vice versa. A particular focus is placed on mental health research, an area still relatively understudied by the clinical NLP research community, but where NLP methods are of notable relevance. Recent advances in clinical NLP method development have been significant, but we propose more emphasis needs to be placed on rigorous evaluation for the field to advance further. To enable this, we provide actionable suggestions, including a minimal protocol that could be used when reporting clinical NLP method development and its evaluation.

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