• J Am Med Inform Assoc · Sep 2014

    Influenza detection from emergency department reports using natural language processing and Bayesian network classifiers.

    • Ye Ye, Fuchiang Rich Tsui, Michael Wagner, Jeremy U Espino, and Qi Li.
    • Real-time Outbreak and Disease Surveillance Laboratory (RODS), Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Intelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
    • J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Sep 1; 21 (5): 815-23.

    ObjectivesTo evaluate factors affecting performance of influenza detection, including accuracy of natural language processing (NLP), discriminative ability of Bayesian network (BN) classifiers, and feature selection.MethodsWe derived a testing dataset of 124 influenza patients and 87 non-influenza (shigellosis) patients. To assess NLP finding-extraction performance, we measured the overall accuracy, recall, and precision of Topaz and MedLEE parsers for 31 influenza-related findings against a reference standard established by three physician reviewers. To elucidate the relative contribution of NLP and BN classifier to classification performance, we compared the discriminative ability of nine combinations of finding-extraction methods (expert, Topaz, and MedLEE) and classifiers (one human-parameterized BN and two machine-parameterized BNs). To assess the effects of feature selection, we conducted secondary analyses of discriminative ability using the most influential findings defined by their likelihood ratios.ResultsThe overall accuracy of Topaz was significantly better than MedLEE (with post-processing) (0.78 vs 0.71, p<0.0001). Classifiers using human-annotated findings were superior to classifiers using Topaz/MedLEE-extracted findings (average area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC): 0.75 vs 0.68, p=0.0113), and machine-parameterized classifiers were superior to the human-parameterized classifier (average AUROC: 0.73 vs 0.66, p=0.0059). The classifiers using the 17 'most influential' findings were more accurate than classifiers using all 31 subject-matter expert-identified findings (average AUROC: 0.76>0.70, p<0.05).ConclusionsUsing a three-component evaluation method we demonstrated how one could elucidate the relative contributions of components under an integrated framework. To improve classification performance, this study encourages researchers to improve NLP accuracy, use a machine-parameterized classifier, and apply feature selection methods.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…