PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11944569

Coding on the home front.

Ann Zeisset
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recently, a group of coders participated in a survey about their day-to-day experiences as remote, or at-home coders. The survey asked a series of questions related to the positives and negatives of coding at home versus coding in the more traditional office setting. Below is a summary of the survey findings.

Explore related subjects

Abstracting and IndexingData CollectionForms and Records ControlJob DescriptionJob SatisfactionMedical RecordsUnited StatesWorkplaceJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ann Zeisset. 2002. Coding on the home front.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11944569/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

"Understanding" medical school curriculum content using KnowledgeMap.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and evaluation of computational tools to identify concepts within medical curricular documents, using information derived from the National Library of Medicine's Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). The long-term goal of the KnowledgeMap (KM) project is to provide faculty and students with an improved ability to develop, review, and integrate components of the medical school curriculum. DESIGN: The KM concept identifier uses lexical resources partially derived from the UMLS (SPECIALIST lexicon and Metathesaurus), heuristic language processing techniques, and an empirical scoring algorithm. KM differentiates among potentially matching Metathesaurus concepts within a source document. The authors manually identified important "gold standard" biomedical concepts within selected medical school full-content lecture documents and used these documents to compare KM concept recognition with that of a known state-of-the-art "standard"-the National Library of Medicine's MetaMap program. MEASUREMENTS: The number of "gold standard" concepts in each lecture document identified by either KM or MetaMap, and the cause of each failure or relative success in a random subset of documents. RESULTS: For 4,281 "gold standard" concepts, MetaMap matched 78% and KM 82%. Precision for "gold standard" concepts was 85% for MetaMap and 89% for KM. The heuristics of KM accurately matched acronyms, concepts underspecified in the document, and ambiguous matches. The most frequent cause of matching failures was absence of target concepts from the UMLS Metathesaurus. CONCLUSION: The prototypic KM system provided an encouraging rate of concept extraction for representative medical curricular texts. Future versions of KM should be evaluated for their ability to allow administrators, lecturers, and students to navigate through the medical curriculum to locate redundancies, find interrelated information, and identify omissions. In addition, the ability of KM to meet specific, personal information needs should be assessed.

Abstracting and Indexing↗