Automatic generation of natural language nursing shift summaries in neonatal intensive care: BT-Nurse

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 157-172

  Hunter, James ^a   Freer, Yvonne ^b   Gatt, Albert ^a,c   Reiter, Ehud ^a   Sripada, Somayajulu ^a   Sykes, Cindy ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MALTA   (Malta)

Author keywords

Data to text; Health informatics; Natural language generation; Natural language processing; Neonatal intensive care

Indexed keywords

DATA TO TEXT; HEALTH INFORMATICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE GENERATION; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE;

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; NURSING;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DECISION MAKING; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL STAFF; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; NEWBORN INTENSIVE CARE; NURSE; NURSING CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPIRATORY SYSTEM;

COMMUNICATION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS, NEONATAL; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; NURSING STAFF, HOSPITAL; PATIENT HANDOFF;

EID: 84870454172     PISSN: 09333657     EISSN: 18732860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2012.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Cunningham S., Deere S., Symon A., Elton R., McIntosh N. A randomized, controlled trial of computerized physiologic trend monitoring in an intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine 1998, 26:2053-2059.
2. Alberdi E., Becher J.-C., Gilhooly K., Hunter J., Logie R., Lyon A., et al. Expertise and the interpretation of computerised physiological data: implications for the design of computerised physiological monitoring in neonatal intensive care. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 2001, 55:191-216.
3. Freer Y., Ferguson L., Ewing G., Hunter J., Logie R., Rudkin S., et al. Mismatched concepts in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU): further issues for computer decision support?. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2003, 17:441-447.
4. Law A., Freer Y., Hunter J., Logie R., McIntosh N., Quinn J. A comparison of graphical and textual presentations of time series data to support medical decision making in the neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2005, 19:183-194.
5. van der Meulen M., Logie R., Freer Y., Sykes C., McIntosh N., Hunter J. When a graph is poorer than 100 words: a comparison of computerised natural language generation, human generated descriptions and graphical displays in neonatal intensive care. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008, 24:77-89.
6. Hunter J., Freer Y., Gatt A., Reiter E., Sripada S., Sykes C., et al. BT-Nurse: computer generation of natural language shift summaries from complex heterogeneous medical data. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2011, 18(5):621-624.
7. Portet F., Reiter E., Gatt A., Hunter J., Sripada S., Freer Y., et al. Automatic generation of textual summaries from neonatal intensive care data. Artificial Intelligence 2009, 173:789-816.
8. Gatt A., Portet F., Reiter E., Hunter J., Mahamood S., Moncur W., et al. From data to text in the neonatal intensive care unit: using NLG technology for decision support and information management. AI Communications 2009, 22:153-186.
9. Friesen M., White S., Boyers J. Handoffs: implications for nurses. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses 2008, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. R. Hughes (Ed.).
10. Menke J., Broner C., Campbell D., McKissick M., Edwards-Beckett J. Computerized clinical documentation system in the pediatric intensive care unit. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2001, 1. [Article no. 3].
11. Strople B., Ottani P. Can technology improve intershift report? What the research reveals. Journal of Professional Nursing 2006, 22(3):197-204.
12. Staggers N., Clark L., Blaz J., Kapsandoy S. Why patient summaries in electronic health records do not provide the cognitive support necessary for nurses' handoffs on medical and surgical units: insights from interviews and observations. Health Informatics Journal 2011, 17(3):209-223.
13. Goddard K., Roudsari A., Wyatt J. Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators and mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2012, 19:121-127.
14. Reiter E., Dale R. Building natural language generation systems 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Reiter E. An architecture for data-to-text systems. Proceedings of the 11th European workshop on natural language generation 2007, 97-104.
16. Reiter E., Sripada S., Hunter J., Yu J., Davy I. Choosing words in computer-generated weather forecasts. Artificial Intelligence 2005, 167:137-169.
17. Belz A. Automatic generation of weather forecast texts using comprehensive probabilistic generation space models. Natural Language Engineering 2007, 14:431-455.
18. Goldberg E., Driedger N., Kittredge R. Using natural language processing to produce weather forecasts. IEEE Expert 1994, 9:45-53.
19. Coch J. MULTIMETEO: multilingual generation of weather forecasts. ELRA Newsletter 1998, 3(2).
20. Turner R., Sripada S., Reiter E., Davy I. Selecting the content of textual descriptions of geographically located events in spatio-temporal weather data. Applications and innovations in intelligent systems XV. Proceedings of the 27th SGAI international conference on innovative techniques and applications of artificial intelligence 2007, 75-88.
21. Kukich K. Design of a knowledge-based report generator. Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL'83) 1983, 145-150.
22. Iordanskaja L., Kim M., Kittredge R., Lavoie B., Polguere A. Generation of extended bilingual statistical reports. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on computational linguistics 1992, 1019-1023.
23. Ferres L., Parush A., Roberts S., Lindgaard G. Helping people with visual impairments gain access to graphical information through natural language: the iGraph system. Computers helping people with special needs: 10th international conference, ICCHP 2006 2006, 1122-1130.
24. Yu J., Reiter E., Hunter J., Mellish C. Choosing the content of textual summaries of large time-series data sets. Natural Language Engineering 2007, 13:25-49.
25. Hueske-Kraus D. Text generation in clinical medicine: a review. Methods of Information in Medicine 2003, 42(1):51-60.
26. Reiter E., Robertson R., Osman L. Lessons from a failure: generating tailored smoking cessation letters. Artificial Intelligence 2003, 144:41-58.
27. Hueske-Kraus D. Suregen-2: a shell system for the generation of clinical documents. Proceedings of the conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (EACL'03) 2003, 215-218.
28. Afantenos S., Karkaletsis V., Stamatopoulos P. Summarization from medical documents: a survey. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 2005, 33(2):157-177.
29. Lacaye C., Diez F. A review of explanation methods for heuristic expert systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 2004, 19(2):133-146.
30. McKeown L., Pan S., Shaw J., Jordan D., Allen B. Language generation for multimedia healthcare briefings. Fifth ACL conference on applied natural language processing (ANLP'97) 1997, 277-282.
31. Harris M. Building a large-scale commercial NLG system for an EMR. Proceedings of the 5th international natural language generation conference (INLG'08) 2008, 157-160.
32. Suominen H., Salakoski T. Supporting communication and decision making in Finnish intensive care with language technology. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2010, 1(4):595-614.
33. Mahamood S., Reiter E. Generating affective natural language for parents of neonatal infants. Proceedings of the 13th European workshop on natural language generation (ENLG'11) 2011, 12-21.
34. Moncur W., Reiter E., Masthoff J., Carmichael A. Modelling the socially intelligent communication of health information to a patient's personal social network. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2010, 14:319-325.
35. Humphreys B., Lindberg D. The UMLS project: making the conceptual connection between users and the information they need. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 1993, 81:170-177.
36. Noy N., Crubézy M., Fergusson R., Knublauch H., Tu S., Vendetti J., et al. Protégé-2000: an open-source ontology-development and knowledge-acquisition environment. AMIA 2003 annual symposium proceedings 2003, 953.
37. Allen J. Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence 1984, 23:123-154.
38. Shahar S., Miksch S., Johnson P. The Asgaard project: a task-specific framework for the application and critiquing of time-oriented clinical guidelines. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 1998, 14:29-51.
39. Quinn J. Bayesian condition monitoring in neonatal intensive care. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Edinburgh; 2007.
40. Portet F., Gao F., Hunter J., Sripada S. Evaluation of online bradycardia boundary detectors from neonatal clinical data. Proceedings of the 29th IEEE annual international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBS'07) 2007, 3288-3291.
41. Keogh E., Chu S., Hart D., Pazzani M. An online algorithm for segmenting time series. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM'01) 2001, 289-296.
42. Friedman-Hill E. JESS in action: Java rule-based systems 2003, Manning Publications Co., Greenwich, CT.
43. McKeown K. Text generation 1985, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
44. Hallett C., Power R., Scott D. Summarisation and visualisation of e-health data repositories. Proceedings of the UK E-Science all-hands meeting 2006.
45. Gatt A., Reiter E. SimpleNLG: a realisation engine for practical applications. Proceedings of the 12th European workshop on natural language generation (ENLG'09) 2009, 90-94.
46. Krahmer E., Theune M. Efficient context-sensitive generation of referring expressions. Information sharing: reference and presupposition in language generation and interpretation 2002, CSLI, Stanford. K. van Deemter, R. Kibble (Eds.).
47. Harbusch D., Kempen G. Generating clausal coordinate ellipsis multilingually: a uniform approach based on postediting. Proceedings of the 12th European workshop on natural language generation (ENLG'09) 2009, 105-144.
48. Partee B. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 1973, 70:601-609.
49. Webber B. The interpretation of tense in discourse. Computational Linguistics 1988, 14(2):61-73.
50. ter Meulen A. Representing time in natural language 1995, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
51. Reichenbach H. Elements of symbolic logic 1947, Macmillan, London.
52. Caenepeel M. Aspect and text structure. Linguistics 1995, 33:213-253.
53. Moens M., Steedman M. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 1988, 14:15-28.
54. Scott A., Clayton J., Gibson E. A practical guide to knowledge acquisition 1991, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
55. Shahar Y., Musen M. Knowledge-based temporal abstraction in clinical domains. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 1996, 8(3):267-298.
56. Reiter E., Belz A. An investigation into the validity of some metrics for automatically evaluating natural language generation systems. Computational Linguistics 2009, 35(4):529-558.
57. Papineni S., Roukos T., Ward W., Zhu W. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL'02) 2002, 311-318.
58. Lin C.-Y. ROUGE: a package for automatic evaluation of summaries. Proceedings of the workshop on text summarization branches out (WAS 2004) 2004.
59. Nenkova A., Passonneau R., McKeown K. The pyramid method: incorporating human content selection variation in summarization evaluation. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing 2007, 4(2).
60. McKinlay A., McVittie C., Reiter E., Freer Y., Sykes C., Logie R. Design issues for socially intelligent user interfaces: a qualitative analysis of a data-to-text system for summarizing clinical data. Methods of Information in Medicine 2010, 49:379-387.
61. Lester J., Porter B. Developing and empirically evaluating robust explanation generators: the KNIGHT experiments. Computational Linguistics 1997, 23(1):65-101.
62. Gatt A., Belz A. Introducing shared task evaluation to NLG: the TUNA shared task evaluation challenges. Empirical methods in natural language generation 2010, 264-294. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. E. Krahmer, M. Theune (Eds.).
63. Calliston-Burch C., Osborne M., Koehn P. Re-evaluating the role of BLEU in machine translation research. Proceedings of the 11th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (EACL'06) 2006, 249-256.
64. Dorr B., Monz C., President S., Schwartz R., Zajic D. A methodology for extrinsic evaluation of text summarization: does ROUGE correlate?. Proceedings of the ACL workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarisation 2005, 1-8.
65. Artstein R., Poesio M. Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics 2008, 34(4):555-596.
66. Nguyen H., Mellish C., Mort A., Kindness P., Knight J., Reiter E. Using NLG to manage information in medical emergencies. Proceedings of digital engagement 2011 - the second digital economy all hands conference 2011.