↓ Skip to main content

Normalizing acronyms and abbreviations to aid patient understanding of clinical texts: ShARe/CLEF eHealth Challenge 2013, Task 2

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Normalizing acronyms and abbreviations to aid patient understanding of clinical texts: ShARe/CLEF eHealth Challenge 2013, Task 2
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13326-016-0084-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle L. Mowery, Brett R. South, Lee Christensen, Jianwei Leng, Laura-Maria Peltonen, Sanna Salanterä, Hanna Suominen, David Martinez, Sumithra Velupillai, Noémie Elhadad, Guergana Savova, Sameer Pradhan, Wendy W. Chapman

Abstract

The ShARe/CLEF eHealth challenge lab aims to stimulate development of natural language processing and information retrieval technologies to aid patients in understanding their clinical reports. In clinical text, acronyms and abbreviations, also referenced as short forms, can be difficult for patients to understand. For one of three shared tasks in 2013 (Task 2), we generated a reference standard of clinical short forms normalized to the Unified Medical Language System. This reference standard can be used to improve patient understanding by linking to web sources with lay descriptions of annotated short forms or by substituting short forms with a more simplified, lay term. In this study, we evaluate 1) accuracy of participating systems' normalizing short forms compared to a majority sense baseline approach, 2) performance of participants' systems for short forms with variable majority sense distributions, and 3) report the accuracy of participating systems' normalizing shared normalized concepts between the test set and the Consumer Health Vocabulary, a vocabulary of lay medical terms. The best systems submitted by the five participating teams performed with accuracies ranging from 43 to 72 %. A majority sense baseline approach achieved the second best performance. The performance of participating systems for normalizing short forms with two or more senses with low ambiguity (majority sense greater than 80 %) ranged from 52 to 78 % accuracy, with two or more senses with moderate ambiguity (majority sense between 50 and 80 %) ranged from 23 to 57 % accuracy, and with two or more senses with high ambiguity (majority sense less than 50 %) ranged from 2 to 45 % accuracy. With respect to the ShARe test set, 69 % of short form annotations contained common concept unique identifiers with the Consumer Health Vocabulary. For these 2594 possible annotations, the performance of participating systems ranged from 50 to 75 % accuracy. Short form normalization continues to be a challenging problem. Short form normalization systems perform with moderate to reasonable accuracies. The Consumer Health Vocabulary could enrich its knowledge base with missed concept unique identifiers from the ShARe test set to further support patient understanding of unfamiliar medical terms.

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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 23 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Linguistics 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 20 24%
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 08 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,810,867
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#288
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,805
of 393,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 393,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.