A scoping review of preprocessing methods for unstructured text data to assess data quality.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Unstructured text data (UTD) are increasingly found in many databases that were never intended to be used for research, including electronic medical record (EMR) databases. Data quality can impact the usefulness of UTD for research. UTD are typically prepared for analysis (i.e., preprocessed) and analyzed using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. Different NLP methods are used to preprocess UTD and may affect data quality. Objective: Our objective was to systematically document current research and practices about NLP preprocessing methods to describe or improve the quality of UTD, including UTD found in EMR databases. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken of peer-reviewed studies published between December 2002 and January 2021. Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost were searched for literature relevant to the study objective. Information extracted from the studies included article characteristics (i.e., year of publication, journal discipline), data characteristics, types of preprocessing methods, and data quality topics. Study data were presented using a narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 41 articles were included in the scoping review; over 50% were published between 2016 and 2021. Almost 20% of the articles were published in health science journals. Common preprocessing methods included removal of extraneous text elements such as stop words, punctuation, and numbers, word tokenization, and parts of speech tagging. Data quality topics for articles about EMR data included misspelled words, security (i.e., de-identification), word variability, sources of noise, quality of annotations, and ambiguity of abbreviations. Conclusions: Multiple NLP techniques have been proposed to preprocess UTD, with some differences in techniques applied to EMR data. There are similarities in the data quality dimensions used to characterize structured data and UTD. While a few general-purpose measures of data quality that do not require external data; most of these focus on the measurement of noise.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".