2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-019-0108-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detecting false-positive disease references in veterinary clinical notes without manual annotations

Abstract: Clinicians often include references to diseases in clinical notes, which have not been diagnosed in their patients. For some diseases terms, the majority of disease references written in the patient notes may not refer to true disease diagnosis. These references occur because clinicians often use their clinical notes to speculate about disease existence (differential diagnosis) or to state that the disease has been ruled out. To train classifiers for disambiguating disease references, previous researchers buil… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

4
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Compared to the 3,998 dogs in the earlier report, the larger sample size of 22,333 dogs in the current study offers greater current precision. In addition, the methods used to extract disorder data from the clinical records have also advanced considerably during the intervening years [ 47 ], meaning that the current study was more highly powered and technologically enabled than the previous study. The ranking of the most common disorders in the current study that relied on veterinary clinical records differs substantially to results based on other data resources.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to the 3,998 dogs in the earlier report, the larger sample size of 22,333 dogs in the current study offers greater current precision. In addition, the methods used to extract disorder data from the clinical records have also advanced considerably during the intervening years [ 47 ], meaning that the current study was more highly powered and technologically enabled than the previous study. The ranking of the most common disorders in the current study that relied on veterinary clinical records differs substantially to results based on other data resources.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As discussed previously, presenting signs where more than one was listed were reported as the first given, which might have affected the data due to linguistic biases. Novel methods of diagnosis coding based on natural language processing recently developed by VetCompass might provide a solution to these problems in the future 93 .…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinical features in this study were extracted through manual revision of the clinical notes, restricting the sample size. Future work for feature extraction using natural language processing methods or classification of clinical features could be beneficial for the clinical application of such predictive algorithms to optimise the analysis of large datasets, like VetCompass 39 . Due to the retrospective collection of the data, there is a possibility of feature misclassification and an introduction of noise, which could have diluted some predictive effects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%