Preprocessing narrative texts in electronic medical records to identify hospital adverse events: A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Narrative electronic medical records (EMR), which include textual notes created by clinicians within healthcare environments, represent a significant resource for documenting various facets of patient care. This form of text exhibits distinctive characteristics, such as the occurrence of grammatically incorrect sentences, abbreviations, frequent acronyms, specialized characters with particular meanings, negation expressions, and sporadic misspellings. As a result, a primary goal in processing these textual notes is to implement effective preprocessing techniques that enhance data quality and ensure consistency across all entries. Recent advancements in algorithms and methodologies within the fields of natural language processing (NLP), machine learning (ML), and large language models (LLM) have prompted researchers to leverage narrative EMR for the detection of hospital adverse events (HAE). METHODS: The scoping review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A scoping review protocol was developed and utilized to guide the research process, clearly outlining the eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategies, data management, selection process, data collection procedures, data items, outcomes and prioritization, data synthesis, and meta-bias considerations. The search strategy was implemented across nine engineering and medical electronic databases. RESULTS: The results have indicated that from a total of 3,264 studies retrieved, 48 unique studies were included in the review. Responses to the research questions were systematically extracted from these studies. The review has identified challenges associated with the preprocessing of narrative texts in EMR for HAE identification. Additionally, three research gaps have been identified: (1) the imperative need for a pipeline to preprocess narrative EMR for the identification of HAE, (2) the necessity for a robust system capable of managing the extensive volume of narrative EMR data, and (3) the requirement for temporal event system, which are essential for effective HAE detection. The study also has underscored the essential role of preprocessing tasks in enhancing the performance of HAE detection. The study has emphasized the importance of extracting N-grams from clinical text, normalizing these N-grams through lemmatization and/or stemming, and establishing semantic feature extraction in preprocessing tasks that significantly affect HAE detection performance. While LLM-based systems naturally incorporate tokenization and normalization processes within their frameworks, it remains crucial to address features that hold semantic relevance to the specific type of HAE during preprocessing. CONCLUSION: This scoping review has provided valuable insights for researchers focused on HAE detection utilizing narrative EMR data. It has elucidated how preprocessing tasks can elevate the performance of HAE detection and draws attention to neglected research gaps within the field. Addressing these gaps will necessitate further investigation in subsequent research endeavors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».