Dataset Information

A Natural Language Processing-Assisted Extraction System for Gleason Scores: Development and Usability Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Natural language processing (NLP) offers significantly faster variable extraction compared to traditional human extraction but cannot interpret complicated notes as well as humans can. Thus, we hypothesized that an "NLP-assisted" extraction system, which uses humans for complicated notes and NLP for uncomplicated notes, could produce faster extraction without compromising accuracy.

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop and pilot an NLP-assisted extraction system to leverage the strengths of both human and NLP extraction of prostate cancer Gleason scores.

Methods

We collected all available clinical and pathology notes for prostate cancer patients in an unselected academic biobank cohort. We developed an NLP system to extract prostate cancer Gleason scores from both clinical and pathology notes. Next, we designed and implemented the NLP-assisted extraction system algorithm to categorize notes into "uncomplicated" and "complicated" notes. Uncomplicated notes were assigned to NLP extraction and complicated notes were assigned to human extraction. We randomly reviewed 200 patients to assess the accuracy and speed of our NLP-assisted extraction system and compared it to NLP extraction alone and human extraction alone.

Results

Of the 2051 patients in our cohort, the NLP system extracted a prostate surgery Gleason score from 1147 (55.92%) patients and a prostate biopsy Gleason score from 1624 (79.18%) patients. Our NLP-assisted extraction system had an overall accuracy rate of 98.7%, which was similar to the accuracy of human extraction alone (97.5%; P=.17) and significantly higher than the accuracy of NLP extraction alone (95.3%; P<.001). Moreover, our NLP-assisted extraction system reduced the workload of human extractors by approximately 95%, resulting in an average extraction time of 12.7 seconds per patient (vs 256.1 seconds per patient for human extraction alone).

Conclusions

We demonstrated that an NLP-assisted extraction system was able to achieve much faster Gleason score extraction compared to traditional human extraction without sacrificing accuracy.

SUBMITTER: Yu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8285739 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Routinely collected healthcare data are a powerful research resource but often lack detailed disease-specific information that is collected in clinical free text, for example, clinic letters. We aim to use natural language processing techniques to extract detailed clinical information from epilepsy clinic letters to enrich routinely collected data. DESIGN:We used the general architecture for text engineering (GATE) framework to build an information extraction system, ExECT (extraction of epilepsy clinical text), combining rule-based and statistical techniques. We extracted nine categories of epilepsy information in addition to clinic date and date of birth across 200 clinic letters. We compared the results of our algorithm with a manual review of the letters by an epilepsy clinician. SETTING:De-identified and pseudonymised epilepsy clinic letters from a Health Board serving half a million residents in Wales, UK. RESULTS:We identified 1925 items of information with overall precision, recall and F1 score of 91.4%, 81.4% and 86.1%, respectively. Precision and recall for epilepsy-specific categories were: epilepsy diagnosis (88.1%, 89.0%), epilepsy type (89.8%, 79.8%), focal seizures (96.2%, 69.7%), generalised seizures (88.8%, 52.3%), seizure frequency (86.3%-53.6%), medication (96.1%, 94.0%), CT (55.6%, 58.8%), MRI (82.4%, 68.8%) and electroencephalogram (81.5%, 75.3%). CONCLUSIONS:We have built an automated clinical text extraction system that can accurately extract epilepsy information from free text in clinic letters. This can enhance routinely collected data for research in the UK. The information extracted with ExECT such as epilepsy type, seizure frequency and neurological investigations are often missing from routinely collected data. We propose that our algorithm can bridge this data gap enabling further epilepsy research opportunities. While many of the rules in our pipeline were tailored to extract epilepsy specific information, our methods can be applied to other diseases and also can be used in clinical practice to record patient information in a structured manner.

Project description:BackgroundMulti-center electronic health records (EHR) can support quality improvement initiatives and comparative effectiveness research in stroke care. However, limitations of EHR-based research include challenges in abstracting key clinical variables from non-structured data at scale. This is further compounded by missing data. Here we develop a natural language processing (NLP) model that automatically reads EHR notes to determine the NIH stroke scale (NIHSS) score of patients with acute stroke.MethodsThe study included notes from acute stroke patients (>= 18 years) admitted to the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) (2015-2022). The MGH data were divided into training (70%) and hold-out test (30%) sets. A two-stage model was developed to predict the admission NIHSS. A linear model with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was trained within the training set. For notes in the test set where the NIHSS was documented, the scores were extracted using regular expressions (stage 1), for notes where NIHSS was not documented, LASSO was used for prediction (stage 2). The reference standard for NIHSS was obtained from Get With The Guidelines Stroke Registry. The two-stage model was tested on the hold-out test set and validated in the MIMIC-III dataset (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-MIMIC III 2001-2012) v1.4, using root mean squared error (RMSE) and Spearman correlation (SC).ResultsWe included 4,163 patients (MGH = 3,876; MIMIC = 287); average age of 69 [SD 15] years; 53% male, and 72% white. 90% patients had ischemic stroke and 10% hemorrhagic stroke. The two-stage model achieved a RMSE [95% CI] of 3.13 [2.86-3.41] (SC = 0.90 [0.88-0. 91]) in the MGH hold-out test set and 2.01 [1.58-2.38] (SC = 0.96 [0.94-0.97]) in the MIMIC validation set.ConclusionsThe automatic NLP-based model can enable large-scale stroke severity phenotyping from EHR and therefore support real-world quality improvement and comparative effectiveness studies in stroke.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many health care systems now allow patients to access their electronic health record (EHR) notes online through patient portals. Medical jargon in EHR notes can confuse patients, which may interfere with potential benefits of patient access to EHR notes. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the usability and content quality of NoteAid, a Web-based natural language processing system that links medical terms in EHR notes to lay definitions, that is, definitions easily understood by lay people. METHODS:NoteAid incorporates two core components: CoDeMed, a lexical resource of lay definitions for medical terms, and MedLink, a computational unit that links medical terms to lay definitions. We developed innovative computational methods, including an adapted distant supervision algorithm to prioritize medical terms important for EHR comprehension to facilitate the effort of building CoDeMed. Ten physician domain experts evaluated the user interface and content quality of NoteAid. The evaluation protocol included a cognitive walkthrough session and a postsession questionnaire. Physician feedback sessions were audio-recorded. We used standard content analysis methods to analyze qualitative data from these sessions. RESULTS:Physician feedback was mixed. Positive feedback on NoteAid included (1) Easy to use, (2) Good visual display, (3) Satisfactory system speed, and (4) Adequate lay definitions. Opportunities for improvement arising from evaluation sessions and feedback included (1) improving the display of definitions for partially matched terms, (2) including more medical terms in CoDeMed, (3) improving the handling of terms whose definitions vary depending on different contexts, and (4) standardizing the scope of definitions for medicines. On the basis of these results, we have improved NoteAid's user interface and a number of definitions, and added 4502 more definitions in CoDeMed. CONCLUSIONS:Physician evaluation yielded useful feedback for content validation and refinement of this innovative tool that has the potential to improve patient EHR comprehension and experience using patient portals. Future ongoing work will develop algorithms to handle ambiguous medical terms and test and evaluate NoteAid with patients.