Abstract. Discharge summaries and other free-text reports in healthcare transfer information between working shifts and geographic locations. Patients are likely to have difficulties in understanding their content, because of their medical jargon, non-standard abbreviations, and ward-specific idioms. This paper reports on an evaluation lab with an aim to support the continuum of care by developing methods and resources that make clinical reports in English easier to understand for patients, and which helps them in finding information related to their condition. This ShARe/CLEFeHealth2013 lab offered student mentoring and shared tasks: identification and normalisation of disorders (1a and 1b) and normalisation of abbreviations and acronyms (2) Overview of the ShARe/CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2013 213 reports with respect to terminology standards in healthcare as well as information retrieval (3) to address questions patients may have when reading clinical reports. The focus on patients' information needs as opposed to the specialised information needs of physicians and other healthcare workers was the main feature of the lab distinguishing it from previous shared tasks. De-identified clinical reports for the three tasks were from US intensive care and originated from the MIMIC II database. Other text documents for Task 3 were from the Internet and originated from the Khresmoi project. Task 1 annotations originated from the ShARe annotations. For Tasks 2 and 3, new annotations, queries, and relevance assessments were created. 64, 56, and 55 people registered their interest in Tasks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 34 unique teams (3 members per team on average) participated with 22, 17, 5, and 9 teams in Tasks 1a, 1b, 2 and 3, respectively. The teams were from Australia, China, France, India, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Spain, UK, and USA. Some teams developed and used additional annotations, but this strategy contributed to the system performance only in Task 2. The best systems had the F1 score of 0.75 in Task 1a; Accuracies of 0.59 and 0.72 in Tasks 1b and 2; and Precision at 10 of 0.52 in Task 3. The results demonstrate the substantial community interest and capabilities of these systems in making clinical reports easier to understand for patients. The organisers have made data and tools available for future research and development.

Abstract. Discharge summaries and other free-text reports in healthcare transfer information between working shifts and geographic locations. Patients are likely to have difficulties in understanding their content, because of their medical jargon, non-standard abbreviations, and ward-specific idioms. This paper reports on an evaluation lab with an aim to support the continuum of care by developing methods and resources that make clinical reports in English easier to understand for patients, and which helps them in finding information related to their condition. This ShARe/CLEFeHealth2013 lab offered student mentoring and shared tasks: identification and normalisation of disorders (1a and 1b) and normalisation of abbreviations and acronyms (2) Overview of the ShARe/CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2013 213 reports with respect to terminology standards in healthcare as well as information retrieval (3) to address questions patients may have when reading clinical reports. The focus on patients' information needs as opposed to the specialised information needs of physicians and other healthcare workers was the main feature of the lab distinguishing it from previous shared tasks. De-identified clinical reports for the three tasks were from US intensive care and originated from the MIMIC II database. Other text documents for Task 3 were from the Internet and originated from the Khresmoi project. Task 1 annotations originated from the ShARe annotations. For Tasks 2 and 3, new annotations, queries, and relevance assessments were created. 64, 56, and 55 people registered their interest in Tasks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 34 unique teams (3 members per team on average) participated with 22, 17, 5, and 9 teams in Tasks 1a, 1b, 2 and 3, respectively. The teams were from Australia, China, France, India, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Spain, UK, and USA. Some teams developed and used additional annotations, but this strategy contributed to the system performance only in Task 2. The best systems had the F1 score of 0.75 in Task 1a; Accuracies of 0.59 and 0.72 in Tasks 1b and 2; and Precision at 10 of 0.52 in Task 3. The results demonstrate the substantial community interest and capabilities of these systems in making clinical reports easier to understand for patients. The organisers have made data and tools available for future research and development.

Objective. We investigate machine translation (MT) of user search queries in the context of cross-lingual information retrieval (IR) in the medical domain. The main focus is on techniques to adapt MT to increase translation quality; however, we also explore MT adaptation to improve effectiveness of cross-lingual IR.Methods and Data. Our MT system is Moses, a state-of-the-art phrase-based statistical machine translation system. The IR system is based on the BM25 retrieval model implemented in the Lucene search engine. The MT techniques employed in this work include in-domain training and tuning, intelligent training data selection, optimization of phrase table configuration, compound splitting, and exploiting synonyms as translation variants. The IR methods include morphological normalization and using multiple translation variants for query expansion. The experiments are performed and thoroughly evaluated on three language pairs: Czech-English, German-English, and French-English. MT quality is evaluated on data sets created within the Khresmoi project and IR effectiveness is tested on the CLEF eHealth 2013 data sets.Results. The search query translation results achieved in our experiments are outstanding -our systems outperform not only our strong baselines, but also Google Translate and Microsoft Bing Translator in direct comparison carried out on all the language pairs. The baseline BLEU scores increased from 26.59 to 41.45 for Czech-English, from 23.03 to 40.82 for German-English, and from 32.67 to 40.82 for French-English. This is a 55% improvement on average. In terms of the IR performance on this particular test collection, a significant improvement over the baseline is achieved only for French-English. For Czech-English and German-English, the increased MT quality does not lead to better IR results.Conclusions. Most of the MT techniques employed in our experiments improve MT of medical search queries. Especially the intelligent training data selection proves to be very successful for domain adaptation of MT. Certain improvements are also obtained from German compound splitting on the source language side. Translation quality, however, does not appear to correlate with the IR performance -better translation does not necessarily yield better retrieval. We discuss in detail the contribution of the individual techniques and state-of-the-art features and provide future research directions.

In this paper we provide an overview of the fourth edition of the CLEF eHealth evaluation lab. CLEF eHealth 2016 continues our evaluation resource building efforts around the easing and support of patients, their next-of-kins and clinical staff in understanding, accessing and authoring eHealth information in a multilingual setting. This year's lab offered three tasks: Task 1 on handover information extraction related to Australian nursing shift changes, Task 2 on information extraction in French corpora, and Task 3 on multilingual patient-centred information retrieval considering query variations. In total 20 teams took part in these tasks (3 in Task 1, 7 in Task 2 and 10 in Task 3). Herein, we describe the resources created for these tasks, evaluation methodology adopted and provide a brief summary of participants to this year's challenges and some results obtained. As in previous years, the organizers have made data and tools associated with the lab tasks available for future research and development.

No abstract