skip to main content
10.1145/3132847.3133149acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Denoising Clinical Notes for Medical Literature Retrieval with Convolutional Neural Model

Published:06 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The rapid increase of medical literature poses a significant challenge for physicians, who have repeatedly reported to struggle to keep up to date with developments in research. This gap is one of the main challenges in integrating recent advances in clinical research with day-to-day practice. Thus, the need for clinical decision support (CDS) search systems that can retrieve highly relevant medical literature given a clinical note describing a patient has emerged. However, clinical notes are inherently noisy, thus not being fit to be used as queries as-is. In this work, we present a convolutional neural model aimed at improving clinical notes representation, making them suitable for document retrieval. The system is designed to predict, for each clinical note term, its importance in relevant documents. The approach was evaluated on the 2016 TREC CDS dataset, where it achieved a 37% improvement in infNDCG over state-of-the-art query reduction methods and a 27% improvement over the best known method for the task.

References

  1. Saeid Balaneshin-kordan and Alexander Kotov. 2016. Optimization method for weighting explicit and latent concepts in clinical decision support queries. In ICTIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Michael Bendersky, Donald Metzler, and W Bruce Croft. 2011. Parameterized concept weighting in verbose queries SIGIR. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Steven Bethard, Guergana Savova, Wei-Te Chen, Leon Derczynski, James Pustejovsky, and Marc Verhagen. 2016. Semeval-2016 task 12: Clinical tempeval. SemEval (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. arXiv:1408.5882 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Giridhar Kumaran and Vitor R Carvalho. 2009. Reducing long queries using query quality predictors SIGIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. André Mourao, Flávio Martins, and Joao Magalhaes. 2014. NovaSearch at TREC 2014 clinical decision support track TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Eitan Naveh, Tal Katz-Navon, and Zvi Stern. 2015. Resident physicians' clinical training and error rate: the roles of autonomy, consultation, and familiarity with the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education 1 (2015), 59--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Heung-Seon Oh and Yuchul Jung. 2015. Cluster-based query expansion using external collections in medical information retrieval. Journal of Biomedical Informatics (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In EMNLP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirk Roberts. 2016. Assessing the Corpus Size vs Similarity Trade-off for Word Embeddings in Clinical NLP ClinicalNLP workshop at COLING 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kirk Roberts, Dina Demner-Fushman, Ellen M Voorhees, and William R Hersh. 2017. Overview of the TREC 2016 Clinical Decision Support Track. TREC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Aliaksei Severyn and Alessandro Moschitti. 2015. Learning to Rank Short Text Pairs with Convolutional Deep Neural Networks SIGIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Luca Soldaini, Arman Cohan, Andrew Yates, Nazli Goharian, and Ophir Frieder. 2015. Retrieving medical literature for clinical decision support ECIR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Luca Soldaini and Nazli Goharian. 2016. QuickUMLS: a fast, unsupervised approach for medical concept extraction MedIR Workshop at SIGIR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Luca Soldaini, Andrew Yates, and Nazli Goharian. 2017. Learning to Reformulate Long Queries for Clinical Decision Support. JASIST (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Emine Yilmaz, Evangelos Kanoulas, and Javed A Aslam. 2008. A simple and efficient sampling method for estimating AP and NDCG SIGIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hualong Zhang and Liting Liu. 2017. NKU at TREC 2016: Clinical Decision Support Track. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Denoising Clinical Notes for Medical Literature Retrieval with Convolutional Neural Model

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CIKM '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
        November 2017
        2604 pages
        ISBN:9781450349185
        DOI:10.1145/3132847

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 November 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        CIKM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate171of855submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader