This paper presents the Bacteria Biotope task of the BioNLP Shared Task 2016, which follows the previous 2013 and 2011 editions. The task focuses on the extraction of the locations (biotopes and geographical places) of bacteria from PubMed abstracts and the characterization of bacteria and their associated habitats with respect to reference knowledge sources (NCBI taxonomy, OntoBiotope ontology). The task is motivated by the importance of the knowledge on bacteria habitats for fundamental research and applications in microbiology. The paper describes the different proposed subtasks, the corpus characteristics, the challenge organization, and the evaluation metrics. We also provide an analysis of the results obtained by participants.

BackgroundManual eligibility screening (ES) for a clinical trial typically requires a labor-intensive review of patient records that utilizes many resources. Leveraging state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) and information extraction (IE) technologies, we sought to improve the efficiency of physician decision-making in clinical trial enrollment. In order to markedly reduce the pool of potential candidates for staff screening, we developed an automated ES algorithm to identify patients who meet core eligibility characteristics of an oncology clinical trial.MethodsWe collected narrative eligibility criteria from ClinicalTrials.gov for 55 clinical trials actively enrolling oncology patients in our institution between 12/01/2009 and 10/31/2011. In parallel, our ES algorithm extracted clinical and demographic information from the Electronic Health Record (EHR) data fields to represent profiles of all 215 oncology patients admitted to cancer treatment during the same period. The automated ES algorithm then matched the trial criteria with the patient profiles to identify potential trial-patient matches. Matching performance was validated on a reference set of 169 historical trial-patient enrollment decisions, and workload, precision, recall, negative predictive value (NPV) and specificity were calculated.ResultsWithout automation, an oncologist would need to review 163 patients per trial on average to replicate the historical patient enrollment for each trial. This workload is reduced by 85% to 24 patients when using automated ES (precision/recall/NPV/specificity: 12.6%/100.0%/100.0%/89.9%). Without automation, an oncologist would need to review 42 trials per patient on average to replicate the patient-trial matches that occur in the retrospective data set. With automated ES this workload is reduced by 90% to four trials (precision/recall/NPV/specificity: 35.7%/100.0%/100.0%/95.5%).ConclusionBy leveraging NLP and IE technologies, automated ES could dramatically increase the trial screening efficiency of oncologists and enable participation of small practices, which are often left out from trial enrollment. The algorithm has the potential to significantly reduce the effort to execute clinical research at a point in time when new initiatives of the cancer care community intend to greatly expand both the access to trials and the number of available trials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0149-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundA high-quality gold standard is vital for supervised, machine learning-based, clinical natural language processing (NLP) systems. In clinical NLP projects, expert annotators traditionally create the gold standard. However, traditional annotation is expensive and time-consuming. To reduce the cost of annotation, general NLP projects have turned to crowdsourcing based on Web 2.0 technology, which involves submitting smaller subtasks to a coordinated marketplace of workers on the Internet. Many studies have been conducted in the area of crowdsourcing, but only a few have focused on tasks in the general NLP field and only a handful in the biomedical domain, usually based upon very small pilot sample sizes. In addition, the quality of the crowdsourced biomedical NLP corpora were never exceptional when compared to traditionally-developed gold standards. The previously reported results on medical named entity annotation task showed a 0.68 F-measure based agreement between crowdsourced and traditionally-developed corpora.ObjectiveBuilding upon previous work from the general crowdsourcing research, this study investigated the usability of crowdsourcing in the clinical NLP domain with special emphasis on achieving high agreement between crowdsourced and traditionally-developed corpora.MethodsTo build the gold standard for evaluating the crowdsourcing workers’ performance, 1042 clinical trial announcements (CTAs) from the ClinicalTrials.gov website were randomly selected and double annotated for medication names, medication types, and linked attributes. For the experiments, we used CrowdFlower, an Amazon Mechanical Turk-based crowdsourcing platform. We calculated sensitivity, precision, and F-measure to evaluate the quality of the crowd’s work and tested the statistical significance (P<.001, chi-square test) to detect differences between the crowdsourced and traditionally-developed annotations.ResultsThe agreement between the crowd’s annotations and the traditionally-generated corpora was high for: (1) annotations (0.87, F-measure for medication names; 0.73, medication types), (2) correction of previous annotations (0.90, medication names; 0.76, medication types), and excellent for (3) linking medications with their attributes (0.96). Simple voting provided the best judgment aggregation approach. There was no statistically significant difference between the crowd and traditionally-generated corpora. Our results showed a 27.9% improvement over previously reported results on medication named entity annotation task.ConclusionsThis study offers three contributions. First, we proved that crowdsourcing is a feasible, inexpensive, fast, and practical approach to collect high-quality annotations for clinical text (when protected health information was excluded). We believe that well-designed user interfaces and rigorous quality control strategy for entity annotation and linking were critical to the success of this work. Second, as a further contribution to the Internet-based crowdsourcing field, we will publicly release t...

Objective(1) To evaluate a state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP)-based approach to automatically de-identify a large set of diverse clinical notes. (2) To measure the impact of de-identification on the performance of information extraction algorithms on the de-identified documents.Material and methodsA cross-sectional study that included 3503 stratified, randomly selected clinical notes (over 22 note types) from five million documents produced at one of the largest US pediatric hospitals. Sensitivity, precision, F value of two automated de-identification systems for removing all 18 HIPAA-defined protected health information elements were computed. Performance was assessed against a manually generated ‘gold standard’. Statistical significance was tested. The automated de-identification performance was also compared with that of two humans on a 10% subsample of the gold standard. The effect of de-identification on the performance of subsequent medication extraction was measured.ResultsThe gold standard included 30 815 protected health information elements and more than one million tokens. The most accurate NLP method had 91.92% sensitivity (R) and 95.08% precision (P) overall. The performance of the system was indistinguishable from that of human annotators (annotators' performance was 92.15%(R)/93.95%(P) and 94.55%(R)/88.45%(P) overall while the best system obtained 92.91%(R)/95.73%(P) on same text). The impact of automated de-identification was minimal on the utility of the narrative notes for subsequent information extraction as measured by the sensitivity and precision of medication name extraction.Discussion and conclusionNLP-based de-identification shows excellent performance that rivals the performance of human annotators. Furthermore, unlike manual de-identification, the automated approach scales up to millions of documents quickly and inexpensively.

ObjectiveTo present a series of experiments: (1) to evaluate the impact of pre-annotation on the speed of manual annotation of clinical trial announcements; and (2) to test for potential bias, if pre-annotation is utilized.MethodsTo build the gold standard, 1400 clinical trial announcements from the clinicaltrials.gov website were randomly selected and double annotated for diagnoses, signs, symptoms, Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Concept Unique Identifiers, and SNOMED CT codes. We used two dictionary-based methods to pre-annotate the text. We evaluated the annotation time and potential bias through F-measures and ANOVA tests and implemented Bonferroni correction.ResultsTime savings ranged from 13.85% to 21.5% per entity. Inter-annotator agreement (IAA) ranged from 93.4% to 95.5%. There was no statistically significant difference for IAA and annotator performance in pre-annotations.ConclusionsOn every experiment pair, the annotator with the pre-annotated text needed less time to annotate than the annotator with non-labeled text. The time savings were statistically significant. Moreover, the pre-annotation did not reduce the IAA or annotator performance. Dictionary-based pre-annotation is a feasible and practical method to reduce the cost of annotation of clinical named entity recognition in the eligibility sections of clinical trial announcements without introducing bias in the annotation process.