PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9929330

Validation of clinical problems using a UMLS-based semantic parser.

Abstract

The capture and symbolization of data from the clinical problem list facilitates the creation of high-fidelity patient resumes for use in aggregate analysis and decision support. We report on the development of a UMLS-based semantic parser and present a preliminary evaluation of the parser in the recognition and validation of disease-related clinical problems. We randomly sampled 20% of the 26,858 unique non-dictionary clinical problems entered into OMR (Online Medical Record) between 1989 and August, 1997, and eliminated a series of qualified problem labels, e.g., history-of, to obtain a dataset of 4122 problem labels. Within this dataset, the authors identified 2810 labels (68.2%) as referring to a broad range of disease-related processes. The parser correctly recognized and validated 1398 of the 2810 disease-related labels (49.8 +/- 1.9%) and correctly excluded 1220 of 1312 non-disease-related labels (93.0 +/- 1.4%). 812 of the 1181 match failures (68.8%) were caused by terms either absent from UMLS or modifiers not accepted by the parser; 369 match failures (31.2%) were caused by labels having patterns not recognized by the parser. By enriching the UMLS lexicon with terms commonly found in provider-entered labels, it appears that performance of the parser can be significantly enhanced over a few subsequent iterations. This initial evaluation provides a foundation from which to make principled additions to the UMLS lexicon locally for use in symbolizing clinical data; further research is necessary to determine applicability to other health care settings.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H S Goldberg, C Hsu, V Law, C Safran. 1998. Validation of clinical problems using a UMLS-based semantic parser.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9929330/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Usability evaluation of the progress note construction set.

OVERVIEW: The Veterans Administration (VA) Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) is a nationally deployed software product that integrates provider order entry, progress notes, vitals, consults, discharge summaries, problem lists, medications, labs, radiology, transcribed documents, study reports, and clinical reminders. Users rapidly adopted the graphical user interface for data retrieval, but demanded options to typing for data entry. We programmed "point and click" forms that integrate with CPRS individually, but were soon overwhelmed by requests. Subsequently, we developed the Progress Note Construction Set (PNCS); a tool suite that permits subject matter experts without programming skills to create reusable "point and click" forms. In this study, we evaluate the usability of these user-constructed forms. METHODS: An untrained, non-VA subject matter expert used the PNCS to create a graphical form for "skin tear" documentation. Ten VA nurses used the skin tear form to document findings for 7 standardized clinical scenarios. Following each scenario the subjects answered usability questions about the form. RESULTS: The subject matter expert created the skin tear form in 78 minutes. Users found the form to facilitate their data entry (p 0.0265), and to be at least as fast (p 0.0029) and as easy to use as expected (p 0.0166). Average note entry time was 3.4 minutes. CONCLUSION: The PNCS allowed a non-programmer to quickly create a usable, CPRS-integrated point and click form. Users found the subject matter expert s form fast and easy to use. The tool suite is a more scaleable form creation method because capacity is no longer limited by programmer availability.

Medical Records Systems, Computerized↗

Looking back or looking all around: comparing two spell checking strategies for documents edition in an electronic patient record.

We report on the comparison of two systems for correcting spelling errors resulting in non-existent words (i.e. not listed in any lexicon). Both systems aim at improving edition of medical reports. Unlike traditional systems, based on word language models, both semantic and syntactic contexts are considered here. Both systems share the same string-to-string edit distance module, and the same contextual disambiguation principles. The differences between the two systems are located at the user interaction level: while the first system is using exclusively the left context, simulating the underlining of every mis-spelling at the end of every word typing, the second system uses the left as well as the right context and simulate a post-edition correction, when asked by the author. Our conclusion shows the improvements brought by the second approach.

Medical Records Systems, Computerized↗