Bryan Rink

Automatic extraction of relations between medical concepts in clinical texts

OBJECTIVE A supervised machine learning approach to discover relations between medical problems, treatments, and tests mentioned in electronic medical records. MATERIALS AND METHODS A single support vector machine classifier was used to identify relations between concepts and to assign their semantic type. Several resources such as Wikipedia, WordNet, General Inquirer, and a relation similarity metric inform the classifier. RESULTS The techniques reported in this paper were evaluated in the 2010 i2b2 Challenge and obtained the highest F1 score for the relation extraction task. When gold standard data for concepts and assertions were available, F1 was 73.7, precision was 72.0, and recall was 75.3. F1 is defined as 2*Precision*Recall/(Precision+Recall). Alternatively, when concepts and assertions were discovered automatically, F1 was 48.4, precision was 57.6, and recall was 41.7. DISCUSSION Although a rich set of features was developed for the classifiers presented in this paper, little knowledge mining was performed from medical ontologies such as those found in UMLS. Future studies should incorporate features extracted from such knowledge sources, which we expect to further improve the results. Moreover, each relation discovery was treated independently. Joint classification of relations may further improve the quality of results. Also, joint learning of the discovery of concepts, assertions, and relations may also improve the results of automatic relation extraction. CONCLUSION Lexical and contextual features proved to be very important in relation extraction from medical texts. When they are not available to the classifier, the F1 score decreases by 3.7%. In addition, features based on similarity contribute to a decrease of 1.1% when they are not available.

A flexible framework for recognizing events, temporal expressions, and temporal relations in clinical text

OBJECTIVE To provide a natural language processing method for the automatic recognition of events, temporal expressions, and temporal relations in clinical records. MATERIALS AND METHODS A combination of supervised, unsupervised, and rule-based methods were used. Supervised methods include conditional random fields and support vector machines. A flexible automated feature selection technique was used to select the best subset of features for each supervised task. Unsupervised methods include Brown clustering on several corpora, which result in our method being considered semisupervised. RESULTS On the 2012 Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) shared task data, we achieved an overall event F1-measure of 0.8045, an overall temporal expression F1-measure of 0.6154, an overall temporal link detection F1-measure of 0.5594, and an end-to-end temporal link detection F1-measure of 0.5258. The most competitive system was our event recognition method, which ranked third out of the 14 participants in the event task. DISCUSSION Analysis reveals the event recognition method has difficulty determining which modifiers to include/exclude in the event span. The temporal expression recognition method requires significantly more normalization rules, although many of these rules apply only to a small number of cases. Finally, the temporal relation recognition method requires more advanced medical knowledge and could be improved by separating the single discourse relation classifier into multiple, more targeted component classifiers. CONCLUSIONS Recognizing events and temporal expressions can be achieved accurately by combining supervised and unsupervised methods, even when only minimal medical knowledge is available. Temporal normalization and temporal relation recognition, however, are far more dependent on the modeling of medical knowledge.

A supervised framework for resolving coreference in clinical records

OBJECTIVE A method for the automatic resolution of coreference between medical concepts in clinical records. MATERIALS AND METHODS A multiple pass sieve approach utilizing support vector machines (SVMs) at each pass was used to resolve coreference. Information such as lexical similarity, recency of a concept mention, synonymy based on Wikipedia redirects, and local lexical context were used to inform the method. Results were evaluated using an unweighted average of MUC, CEAF, and B(3) coreference evaluation metrics. The datasets used in these research experiments were made available through the 2011 i2b2/VA Shared Task on Coreference. RESULTS The method achieved an average F score of 0.821 on the ODIE dataset, with a precision of 0.802 and a recall of 0.845. These results compare favorably to the best-performing system with a reported F score of 0.827 on the dataset and the median system F score of 0.800 among the eight teams that participated in the 2011 i2b2/VA Shared Task on Coreference. On the i2b2 dataset, the method achieved an average F score of 0.906, with a precision of 0.895 and a recall of 0.918 compared to the best F score of 0.915 and the median of 0.859 among the 16 participating teams. DISCUSSION Post hoc analysis revealed significant performance degradation on pathology reports. The pathology reports were characterized by complex synonymy and very few patient mentions. CONCLUSION The use of several simple lexical matching methods had the most impact on achieving competitive performance on the task of coreference resolution. Moreover, the ability to detect patients in electronic medical records helped to improve coreference resolution more than other linguistic analysis.