↓ Skip to main content

Redundancy in electronic health record corpora: analysis, impact on text mining performance and mitigation strategies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Redundancy in electronic health record corpora: analysis, impact on text mining performance and mitigation strategies
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-14-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raphael Cohen, Michael Elhadad, Noémie Elhadad

Abstract

The increasing availability of Electronic Health Record (EHR) data and specifically free-text patient notes presents opportunities for phenotype extraction. Text-mining methods in particular can help disease modeling by mapping named-entities mentions to terminologies and clustering semantically related terms. EHR corpora, however, exhibit specific statistical and linguistic characteristics when compared with corpora in the biomedical literature domain. We focus on copy-and-paste redundancy: clinicians typically copy and paste information from previous notes when documenting a current patient encounter. Thus, within a longitudinal patient record, one expects to observe heavy redundancy. In this paper, we ask three research questions: (i) How can redundancy be quantified in large-scale text corpora? (ii) Conventional wisdom is that larger corpora yield better results in text mining. But how does the observed EHR redundancy affect text mining? Does such redundancy introduce a bias that distorts learned models? Or does the redundancy introduce benefits by highlighting stable and important subsets of the corpus? (iii) How can one mitigate the impact of redundancy on text mining?

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 135 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Master 21 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 44 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 8%
Engineering 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 27 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,247,011
of 25,122,155 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,630
of 7,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,868
of 298,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#51
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,122,155 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 298,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.