Challenges in adapting existing clinical natural language processing systems to multiple, diverse health care settings

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2017, Pages

  Carrell, David S ^a   Schoen, Robert E ^b   Leffler, Daniel A ^c   Morris, Michele ^b   Rose, Sherri ^d   Baer, Andrew ^a   Crockett, Seth D ^e   Gourevitch, Rebecca A ^d   Dean, Katie M ^d   Mehrotra, Ateev ^c,d  

^a GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Data collection; Electronic health records; Information dissemination; Natural language processing

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COMPENSATION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PATHOLOGY; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD SYSTEM; INFORMATION PROCESSING;

COLONOSCOPY; DATA COLLECTION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL;

EID: 85032880037     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocx039     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Jha AK. The promise of electronic records: around the corner or down the road? JAMA. 2011;306:880-81.
2. Wang SV, Rogers JR, Jin Y, Bates DW, Fischer MA. Use of electronic healthcare records to identify complex patients with atrial fibrillation for targeted intervention. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(2):339-44.
3. Rochefort CM, Verma AD, Eguale T, Lee TC, Buckeridge DL. A novel method of adverse event detection can accurately identify venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) from narrative electronic health record data. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22:155-65.
4. Lin C, Karlson EW, Dligach D, et al. Automatic identification of methotrexate-induced liver toxicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from the electronic medical record. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22: e151-61.
5. Teixeira PL, Wei WQ, Cronin RM, et al. Evaluating electronic health record data sources and algorithmic approaches to identify hypertensive individuals. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(1):162-71.
6. Salmasian H, Freedberg DE, Friedman C. Deriving comorbidities from medical records using natural language processing. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20:e239-42.
7. Li Q, Melton K, Lingren T, et al. Phenotyping for patient safety: algorithm development for electronic health record based automated adverse event and medical error detection in neonatal intensive care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:776-84.
8. Ludvigsson JF, Pathak J, Murphy S, et al. Use of computerized algorithm to identify individuals in need of testing for celiac disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20:e306-10.
9. Popejoy LL, Khalilia MA, Popescu M, et al. Quantifying care coordination using natural language processing and domain-specific ontology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22:e93-103.
10. McCoy AB, Wright A, Eysenbach G, et al. State of the art in clinical informatics: evidence and examples. Yearb Med Inform. 2013;8:13-19.
11. Harkema H, Chapman WW, Saul M, Dellon ES, Schoen RE, Mehrotra A. Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(Suppl 1):i150-56.
12. Mehrotra A, Dellon ES, Schoen RE, et al. Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1233-9 e14.
13. Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1670-77.
14. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298-306.
15. Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D, et al. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3). Gut. 2013;62:236-41.
16. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533-41.
17. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362: 1795-803.
18. Corley DA, Levin TR, Doubeni CA. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2541.
19. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Taskforce on quality in endoscopy. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am JGastroenterol. 2006;101:873-85.
20. Imler TD, Morea J, Kahi C, et al. Multi-center colonoscopy quality measurement utilizing natural language processing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:543-52.
21. Raju GS, Lum PJ, Slack RS, et al. Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:512-19.
22. Hou JK, Imler TD, Imperiale TF. Current and future applications of natural language processing in the field of digestive diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:1257-61.
23. Gawron AJ, Thompson WK, Keswani RN, Rasmussen LV, Kho AN. Anatomic and advanced adenoma detection rates as quality metrics determined via natural language processing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1844-49.
24. Deutsch JC. Colonoscopy quality, quality measures, and a natural language processing tool for electronic health records. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1240-42.
25. Aberdeen J, Bayer S, Yeniterzi R, et al. The MITRE Identification Scrubber Toolkit: design, training, and assessment. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79:849-59.
26. Gupta D, Saul M, Gilbertson J. Evaluation of a deidentification (De-Id) software engine to share pathology reports and clinical documents for research. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121:176-86.
27. Cunningham H, Maynard D, Bontcheva K, Tablan V. GATE: an Architecture for Development of Robust HLT Applications. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2002:168-75.
28. Aronson AR, Lang FM. An overview of MetaMap: historical perspective and recent advances. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:229-36.
29. Lindberg DA, Humphreys BL, McCray AT. The Unified Medical Language System. Methods Inf Med. 1993;32:281-91.
30. US National Library of Medicine. Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, Health & Human Services; 2016 [cited]; https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/. Accessed April 6, 2017.
31. Aronson AR. Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the MetaMap program. Proc AMIA Annual Fall Symp. 2001:17-21.
32. U.S. National Library of Medicine. MetaMap Transfer (MMTx). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, Health & Human Services; 2011 [cited]. https://mmtx.nlm.nih.gov/MMTx/. Accessed April 6, 2017.
33. Harkema H, Dowling JN, Thornblade T, Chapman WW. ConText: An algorithm for determining negation, experiencer, and temporal status from clinical reports. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:839-51.
34. Pestian JP, Deleger L, Savova GK, Dexheimer JW, Solti I. Natural Language Processing-The Basics. In: Hutton JJ, ed. Pediatric Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Pediatric Research. New York: Springer; 2012:149-72.
35. Nadkarni PM, Ohno-Machado L, ChapmanWW. Natural language processing: an introduction. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:544-51.
36. Jurafsky D, Martin JH. Speech and Language Processing: an Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.
37. Dai HJ, Syed-Abdul S, Chen CW, Wu CC. Recognition and evaluation of clinical section headings in clinical documents using token-based formulation with conditional random fields. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:873012.
38. Denny JC, Miller RA, Johnson KB, Spickard A. Development and evaluation of a clinical note section header terminology. Proc AMIA Annual Fall Symp. 2008:156-60.
39. Klampfl S, Jack K, Kern R. A comparison of two unsupervised table recognition methods from digital scientific articles. D-Lib Magazine. 2014;20:7.
40. Chute CG. Invited commentary: observational research in the age of the electronic health record. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179:759-61.
41. Figueroa RL, Zeng-Treitler Q, Ngo LH, Goryachev S, Wiechmann EP. Active learning for clinical text classification: is it better than random sampling? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:809-16.