MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129597052 · doi:10.2196/24678

Extracting Drug Names and Associated Attributes From Discharge Summaries: Text Mining Study

2021· article· en· W3129597052 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ghada Alfattni, Maksim Belousov, Niels Peek, Goran Nenadić

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilKing's College LondonSaudi Arabian Cultural Bureau
KeywordsCRFSComputer scienceConditional random fieldNamed-entity recognitionNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceWord embeddingContext (archaeology)Biomedical text miningRelationship extractionTask (project management)Information extractionDeep learningWord (group theory)F1 scoreMachine learningEmbeddingText mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Drug prescriptions are often recorded in free-text clinical narratives; making this information available in a structured form is important to support many health-related tasks. Although several natural language processing (NLP) methods have been proposed to extract such information, many challenges remain. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the feasibility of using NLP and deep learning approaches for extracting and linking drug names and associated attributes identified in clinical free-text notes and presents an extensive error analysis of different methods. This study initiated with the participation in the 2018 National NLP Clinical Challenges (n2c2) shared task on adverse drug events and medication extraction. METHODS: The proposed system (DrugEx) consists of a named entity recognizer (NER) to identify drugs and associated attributes and a relation extraction (RE) method to identify the relations between them. For NER, we explored deep learning-based approaches (ie, bidirectional long-short term memory with conditional random fields [BiLSTM-CRFs]) with various embeddings (ie, word embedding, character embedding [CE], and semantic-feature embedding) to investigate how different embeddings influence the performance. A rule-based method was implemented for RE and compared with a context-aware long-short term memory (LSTM) model. The methods were trained and evaluated using the 2018 n2c2 shared task data. RESULTS: The experiments showed that the best model (BiLSTM-CRFs with pretrained word embeddings [PWE] and CE) achieved lenient micro F-scores of 0.921 for NER, 0.927 for RE, and 0.855 for the end-to-end system. NER, which relies on the pretrained word and semantic embeddings, performed better on most individual entity types, but NER with PWE and CE had the highest classification efficiency among the proposed approaches. Extracting relations using the rule-based method achieved higher accuracy than the context-aware LSTM for most relations. Interestingly, the LSTM model performed notably better in the reason-drug relations, the most challenging relation type. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed end-to-end system achieved encouraging results and demonstrated the feasibility of using deep learning methods to extract medication information from free-text data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207