Cargando…

A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes

BACKGROUND: Identification of negation in electronic health records is essential if we are to understand the computable meaning of the records: Our objective is to compare the accuracy of an automated mechanism for assignment of Negation to clinical concepts within a compositional expression with Hu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elkin, Peter L, Brown, Steven H, Bauer, Brent A, Husser, Casey S, Carruth, William, Bergstrom, Larry R, Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1142321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15876352
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-5-13
_version_ 1782124275188105216
author Elkin, Peter L
Brown, Steven H
Bauer, Brent A
Husser, Casey S
Carruth, William
Bergstrom, Larry R
Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L
author_facet Elkin, Peter L
Brown, Steven H
Bauer, Brent A
Husser, Casey S
Carruth, William
Bergstrom, Larry R
Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L
author_sort Elkin, Peter L
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Identification of negation in electronic health records is essential if we are to understand the computable meaning of the records: Our objective is to compare the accuracy of an automated mechanism for assignment of Negation to clinical concepts within a compositional expression with Human Assigned Negation. Also to perform a failure analysis to identify the causes of poorly identified negation (i.e. Missed Conceptual Representation, Inaccurate Conceptual Representation, Missed Negation, Inaccurate identification of Negation). METHODS: 41 Clinical Documents (Medical Evaluations; sometimes outside of Mayo these are referred to as History and Physical Examinations) were parsed using the Mayo Vocabulary Server Parsing Engine. SNOMED-CT™ was used to provide concept coverage for the clinical concepts in the record. These records resulted in identification of Concepts and textual clues to Negation. These records were reviewed by an independent medical terminologist, and the results were tallied in a spreadsheet. Where questions on the review arose Internal Medicine Faculty were employed to make a final determination. RESULTS: SNOMED-CT was used to provide concept coverage of the 14,792 Concepts in 41 Health Records from John's Hopkins University. Of these, 1,823 Concepts were identified as negative by Human review. The sensitivity (Recall) of the assignment of negation was 97.2% (p < 0.001, Pearson Chi-Square test; when compared to a coin flip). The specificity of assignment of negation was 98.8%. The positive likelihood ratio of the negation was 81. The positive predictive value (Precision) was 91.2% CONCLUSION: Automated assignment of negation to concepts identified in health records based on review of the text is feasible and practical. Lexical assignment of negation is a good test of true Negativity as judged by the high sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio of the test. SNOMED-CT had overall coverage of 88.7% of the concepts being negated.
format Text
id pubmed-1142321
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-11423212005-06-03 A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes Elkin, Peter L Brown, Steven H Bauer, Brent A Husser, Casey S Carruth, William Bergstrom, Larry R Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Identification of negation in electronic health records is essential if we are to understand the computable meaning of the records: Our objective is to compare the accuracy of an automated mechanism for assignment of Negation to clinical concepts within a compositional expression with Human Assigned Negation. Also to perform a failure analysis to identify the causes of poorly identified negation (i.e. Missed Conceptual Representation, Inaccurate Conceptual Representation, Missed Negation, Inaccurate identification of Negation). METHODS: 41 Clinical Documents (Medical Evaluations; sometimes outside of Mayo these are referred to as History and Physical Examinations) were parsed using the Mayo Vocabulary Server Parsing Engine. SNOMED-CT™ was used to provide concept coverage for the clinical concepts in the record. These records resulted in identification of Concepts and textual clues to Negation. These records were reviewed by an independent medical terminologist, and the results were tallied in a spreadsheet. Where questions on the review arose Internal Medicine Faculty were employed to make a final determination. RESULTS: SNOMED-CT was used to provide concept coverage of the 14,792 Concepts in 41 Health Records from John's Hopkins University. Of these, 1,823 Concepts were identified as negative by Human review. The sensitivity (Recall) of the assignment of negation was 97.2% (p < 0.001, Pearson Chi-Square test; when compared to a coin flip). The specificity of assignment of negation was 98.8%. The positive likelihood ratio of the negation was 81. The positive predictive value (Precision) was 91.2% CONCLUSION: Automated assignment of negation to concepts identified in health records based on review of the text is feasible and practical. Lexical assignment of negation is a good test of true Negativity as judged by the high sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio of the test. SNOMED-CT had overall coverage of 88.7% of the concepts being negated. BioMed Central 2005-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC1142321/ /pubmed/15876352 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-5-13 Text en Copyright © 2005 Elkin et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Elkin, Peter L
Brown, Steven H
Bauer, Brent A
Husser, Casey S
Carruth, William
Bergstrom, Larry R
Wahner-Roedler, Dietlind L
A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes
title A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes
title_full A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes
title_fullStr A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes
title_full_unstemmed A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes
title_short A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes
title_sort controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1142321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15876352
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-5-13
work_keys_str_mv AT elkinpeterl acontrolledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT brownstevenh acontrolledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT bauerbrenta acontrolledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT hussercaseys acontrolledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT carruthwilliam acontrolledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT bergstromlarryr acontrolledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT wahnerroedlerdietlindl acontrolledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT elkinpeterl controlledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT brownstevenh controlledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT bauerbrenta controlledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT hussercaseys controlledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT carruthwilliam controlledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT bergstromlarryr controlledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes
AT wahnerroedlerdietlindl controlledtrialofautomatedclassificationofnegationfromclinicalnotes