↓ Skip to main content

Automatic Detection of Negated Findings in Radiological Reports for Spanish Language: Methodology Based on Lexicon-Grammatical Information Processing

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Automatic Detection of Negated Findings in Radiological Reports for Spanish Language: Methodology Based on Lexicon-Grammatical Information Processing
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10278-018-0113-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Walter Koza, Darío Filippo, Viviana Cotik, Vanesa Stricker, Mirian Muñoz, Ninoska Godoy, Natalia Rivas, Ricardo Martínez-Gamboa

Abstract

We present a methodology for the automatic recognition of negated findings in radiological reports considering morphological, syntactic, and semantic information. In order to achieve this goal, a series of rules for processing lexical and syntactic information was elaborated. This required development of an electronic dictionary of medical terminology and informatics grammars. Pertinent information for the assembly of the specialized dictionary was extracted from the ontology SNOMED CT and a medical dictionary (RANM, 2012). Likewise, a general language dictionary was also included. Lexicon-Grammar (LG), proposed by Gross (1975; Cahiers de l'institut de linguistique de Louvain, 24. 23-41 1998), was used to set up the database, which allowed an exhaustive description of the argument structure of predicates projected by lexical units. Computational framework was carried out with NooJ, a free software developed by Silberztein (Silberztein and Noo 2018, 2016), which has various utilities for treating natural language, such as morphological and syntactic grammar, as well as dictionaries. This methodology was compared with a Spanish version of NegEx (Chapman et al. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 34(5):301-310 2001; Stricker 2016). Results show that there are minimal differences in favor of the algorithm developed using NooJ, but the quality and specificity of the data improves if lexical-grammatical information is added.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 6 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,646,262
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#873
of 1,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,705
of 331,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#21
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,067 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.