/
Identifying Negation/Uncertainty Attributes for Identifying Negation/Uncertainty Attributes for

Identifying Negation/Uncertainty Attributes for - PowerPoint Presentation

conchita-marotz
conchita-marotz . @conchita-marotz
Follow
347 views
Uploaded On 2018-09-25

Identifying Negation/Uncertainty Attributes for - PPT Presentation

SHARPn NLP Presentation to SHARPn Summit Secondary Use June 1112 2012 Cheryl Clark PhD MITRE Corporation Negation event has not occurred or entity does not exist ID: 679128

assertion sharpn i2b2 concept sharpn assertion concept i2b2 negated negation patient uncertainty attributes page clinical finding system conditional values

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Identifying Negation/Uncertainty Attribu..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Identifying Negation/Uncertainty Attributes for SHARPn NLP

Presentation to SHARPn Summit “Secondary Use” June 11-12, 2012

Cheryl Clark, PhD

MITRE Corporation Slide2

Negation: event has not occurred or

entity does not exist She had fever yesterday.

Uncertainty: a measure of doubt

The symptoms are

renal failure.Conditional: could exist or occur under certain circumstances The patient should come back to the ED any rash occurs. Subject: person the observation is on; experiencer had lung cancer.Generic: no clear subject/experiencer E. coli is sensitive to Cipro but enterococcus is not

The Challenge: Text Mentions versus Clinical Facts

Page 2

not inconsistent with

no

if

fever

renal infarction

rash

lung cancer

Cipro …

no

uncertain

conditional

f

amily member

Mother

genericSlide3

Assertion Classifier

(Maximum Entropy)

Extract words, concepts, locations

Identify word classes and ordering

Compute scope enclosures by rule

Negation & Uncertainty Cue/Scope Tagger

Background:

Assertion Analysis Tool, Version 1

3

Independent Evaluation:

i2b2/VA 2010 Clinical NLP Challenge

Assertion Status Task

F

Score = 0.93

Input

docs

i2b2 concepts

i2b2 assertions

Identify sectionsSlide4

Assertion Status Integration within SHARPn Clinical Document Pipeline

Input

docs

4

All annotations are UIMA Common Analysis Structure (CAS)

Assertion Classifier

(Maximum Entropy)

Extract words, concepts, locations

Identify word classes and ordering

Compute scope enclosures by rule

Negation & Uncertainty Cue/Scope Tagger

Identify sections

Updated attribute

annotations

Annotations

cTAKES analysis enginesSlide5

i2b2

Assertion Categories

Page

5

Corresponds to SHARPn

conditional

Assertion classification system designed to meet requirements of 2010

i2b2/VA

Challenge Assertion

subtask

Present:

default

category

Patient

had a

stroke

Absent: problem does not exist in the patientHistory inconsistent with stroke

Possible: uncertainty expressed

We

are unable to determine whether she has leukemia

Conditional: patient experiences the problem only under certain conditionsPatient reports

shortness of breath upon climbing

stairs

Hypothetical: medical

problems the patient may develop

If

you experience wheezing

or shortness of breathNot Patient:

problem associated with someone who is not the patient

Family

history of

prostate

cancerSlide6

i2b2 assertion output valuesdefined for medical problems

closed set of valuesmutually exclusive (fixed priority when multiple values apply)SHARPn assertion attributes

Re-architecting Assertions Page

6

present

absent

possible

hypothetical

not patient

conditional

negation

yes/no

uncertainty

yes/no

c

onditional yes/nosubject multi-valued (patient, family, donor, other…)…apply to various entities, events, relationsindependent

attributes can have multiple valuesadditional attributes may be added

single, multi-way classifier

multiple classifiers, some binary

(no SHARPn equivalent)Slide7

Simple mapping from i2b2 assertion classes to SHARPn attributesUses existing i2b2-trained single classifier model

Identifies i2b2/SHARPn equivalencesMaps to SHARPn attribute valuesAssertion

Module Refactoring: Phase 1Page

7

Please call physician you develop .if[]i2b2 assertion status = “hypothetical”SHARPn conditional attribute = “true”

shortness of

breathSlide8

Direct assignment of SHARPn attribute values Will

use multiple classifiers trained on SHARPn dataWill identify attribute values directly BenefitsAligns with SHARPn concept attributes requirementsAligns with SHARPn clinical data annotationEnables more accurate meaning representation

Assertion Module Refactoring: Phase 2

Page

8He does not smoke , has no hypertension , and has history of coronary artery disease.i2b2 2010 ParadigmChoose one:presentabsentpossiblehypotheticalconditionalnot patient

negator

family

SHARPn Attribute Paradigm

negation = present

subject = family_member

no

absent

not patient

familySlide9

System Errors=> Need for Better Linguistic Analysis for Assertions

Need for phrasal structure; scope extent not always enough9

She had [

no

chest pain or chest pressure ] with this and this was deemed a negative test.negated

not negatedSlide10

Insert a signifier node into constituency parse above entityUse tree kernel methods to compare similarity with negated sentences in training data (can be used on other modifiers as well with varying degrees of success)

Syntactic Approaches*

* Slide courtesy of Tim Miller, Children’s Hospital BostonSlide11

Use TK model to extract tree fragment features (Pighin & Moschitti 07)

Allows interaction with other feature typesFaster to find fragments than do whole-tree comparisonsTree kernel fragment mining*

* Slide courtesy of Tim Miller, Children’s Hospital BostonSlide12

Some assertion attributes apply to relations, too.negation

uncertaintyconditionalNext Steps: Assertions for RelationsPage

12

The

are a although do the extent of .bleedingbleedingfundal AVMsexplainsite of

potential

not

causal relation

location relation

uncertain

negatedSlide13

Model RetrainingModels for individual attributes Linguistic features based on parser output

Training on SHARPn dataEnhancements to parsersEvaluationAccuracy on i2b2 gold annotations vs. accuracy on SHARPn gold annotationsi2b2

absent vs. SHARPn negatedi2b2 possible vs. SHARPn

uncertainty

i2b2 hypothetical vs. SHARPn conditional Evaluation based on system-generated entity annotationsEvaluation on CEM concept rather than on individual mentionsNext Steps: Classifier Retraining and Component EvaluationPage 13Slide14

Thank you!

Page 14

SHARPn

Negation/Uncertainty Team

John

AberdeenDavid Carrell

Cheryl Clark

Matt CoarrScott Halgrim

Lynette HirschmanDonna Ihrke

Tim MillerGuergana Savova

Ben WellnerSlide15

Backup SlidesSlide16

Negation and temporal

Circumstantial negation (i2b2 calls this

conditional

)AllergensClarifying Definitions Page 16No longer annotated as negated. Course: degree_of (tumor, CHANGED (span for “removed”))The text span “removed” indicates the

tumor was there but does not exist anymore. Originally annotated as negated.

While smoking, he does not use his nicotine patch

Allergen status distinguished from negation

Allergy_indicator_class

Medications mentioned as allergens originally negated

The patient had the

tumor

removed.

Annotated as negated

ALLERGIES

PCN

Sulpha

Zocor

Asendin

RocephinSlide17

System Errors=> Need for Better Linguistic Analysis for Assertions

She had no signs of infection on her

leg wounds and she did have some mild erythema around her right great toe

Issue is structure and not simply span extent:

17present = should not be negatedabsent = negated

She had

[

no

chest pain or chest pressure

] with this and this was deemed a negative test.

negated

not negated

[

]Slide18

[Add screenshot]

MASTIF-Generated SHARPn attributes in cTAKES OutputPage 18

default values

calculated valueSlide19

Assertions for Different Concept Types

Page 19

p

olarity = -1 negatedSlide20

UMLS CUI-driven annotation (SHARPn)

UMLE contains some concept-internal negation; concept-internal subjectCigarette smoker Concept: [C0337667]   (finding)Never smoked Concept: [C0425293]  Never smoked tobacco (finding)

Non-smoker Concept: [C0337672]  Non-smoker (finding)

Mother smokes Concept

: [C0424969]  (finding)Father smokes Concept: [C0424968]  (finding)Mother does not smoke Concept: [C2586137]   (finding)Father does not smoke Concept: [C2733448]  (finding)i2b2 concept excludes contextual cues; SHARPn concept includes it.The patient has never smoked.Issues: Differences in training data annotationPage 20

i2b2 concept: smoked (negated)SHARPn concept:

never smoked (not negated)Slide21

No known

allergies Concept: [C0262580]  No known allergiesi2b2: concept = known allergies; type =

problem; assertion = absentSHARPn

:

concept = no known allergies; type = disease/disorder; (finding in UMLS) assertion = presentNKAi2b2: concept = nka ; type= problem; assertion = absentIssue: Differences in training data annotation

Page 21Slide22

We describe a methodology for identifying negation and uncertainty in clinical documents and a system that uses that information to assign assertion values to medical problems mentioned in clinical text.  This system was among the top performing systems in the assertion subtask of the 2010 i2b2/VA community evaluation

Challenges in natural language processing for clinical data, and has subsequently been packaged as a UIMA module called the MITRE Assertion Status Tool for Interpreting Facts (MASTIF), which can be integrated with cTAKES. We describe the process of extending MASTIF, which uses a single multi-way classifier to select among a closed set of mutually exclusive assertion categories, to a system that uses individual, independent classifiers to assign values to independent negation and uncertainty attributes associated with a variety of clinical concepts (e.g., medications, procedures, and relations) as specified by SHARPn requirements.  We discuss the benefits that result from this new representation and the challenges associated with generating it automatically.  We compare the accuracy of MASTIF on i2b2 data with accuracy on a subset of SHARPn clinical documents, and discuss the contribution of linguistic features to accuracy and generalizability of the system.  Finally, we discuss our plans for future development.

Abstract

Page

22