Cited by 66Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsTopic Modeling

MADEx: A System for Detecting Medications, Adverse Drug Events, and Their Relations from Clinical Notes

Open access
Yang, Xi, Bian, Jiang, Gong, Yan, Hogan, William R., Wu, Yonghui·2019·Drug Safety

Abstract

Introduction Early detection of adverse drug events (ADEs) from electronic health records is an important, challenging task to support pharmacovigilance and drug safety surveillance. A well-known challenge to use clinical text for detection of ADEs is that much of the detailed information is documented in a narrative manner. Clinical natural language processing (NLP) is the key technology to extract information from unstructured clinical text. Objective We present a machine learning-based clinical NLP system-MADEx-for detecting medications, ADEs, and their relations from clinical notes. Methods We developed a recurrent neural network (RNN) model using a long short-term memory (LSTM) strategy for clinical name entity recognition (NER) and compared it with baseline conditional random fields (CRFs). We also developed a modified training strategy for the RNN, which outperformed the widely used early stop strategy. For relation extraction, we compared support vector machines (SVMs) and random forests on single-sentence relations and cross-sentence relations. In addition, we developed an integrated pipeline to extract entities and relations together by combining RNNs and SVMs. Results MADEx achieved the top-three best performances (F1 score of 0.8233) for clinical NER in the 2018 Medication and Adverse Drug Events (MADE1.0) challenge. The post-challenge evaluation showed that the relation extraction module and integrated pipeline (identify entity and relation together) of MADEx are comparable with the best systems developed in this challenge. Conclusion This study demonstrated the efficiency of deep learning methods for automatic extraction of medications, ADEs, and their relations from clinical text to support pharmacovigilance and drug safety surveillance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40264-018-0761-0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. [1]Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2000) To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC) 25077248
  2. [3]Stausberg J (2014) International prevalence of adverse drug events in hospitals: an analysis of routine data from England, Germany, and the USA. BMC Health Serv Res 14: 125 24620750 PMC3984698
  3. [4]Poudel DR, Acharya P, Ghimire S, Dhital R, Bharati R (2017) Burden of hospitalizations related to adverse drug events in the USA: a retrospective analysis from large inpatient database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 26: 635– 641 28233421
  4. [5]Aljadhey H, Mahmoud MA, Mayet A, Alshaikh M, Ahmed Y, Murray MD, Bates DW (2013) Incidence of adverse drug events in an academic hospital: a prospective cohort study. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care 25: 648– 655 24141014
  5. [6]Aljadhey H, Mahmoud MA, Ahmed Y, (2016) Incidence of adverse drug events in public and private hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: the (ADESA) prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 6: e010831 PMC4947792 27406640
  6. [7]Wang Y, Wang L, Rastegar-Mojarad M, (2018) Clinical information extraction applications: A literature review. J Biomed Inform 77: 34– 49 29162496 PMC5771858
  7. [9]Nadkarni PM, Ohno-Machado L, Chapman WW (2011) Natural language processing: an introduction. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 18: 544– 551 21846786 PMC3168328
  8. [11]Uzuner Ö, South BR, Shen S, DuVall SL (2011) 2010 i2b2/VA challenge on concepts, assertions, and relations in clinical text. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 18: 552– 556 21685143 PMC3168320
  9. [12]Sun W, Rumshisky A, Uzuner O (2013) Evaluating temporal relations in clinical text: 2012 i2b2 Challenge. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 20: 806– 813 23564629 PMC3756273
  10. [14]Pradhan S, Elhadad N, South BR, Martinez D, Christensen L, Vogel A, Suominen H, Chapman WW, Savova G (2015) Evaluating the state of the art in disorder recognition and normalization of the clinical narrative. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 22: 143– 154 25147248 PMC4433360
  11. [15]Lafferty JD, McCallum A, Pereira FCN (2001) Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data In: Proc. Eighteenth Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 282– 289
  12. [16]Hearst MA, Dumais ST, Osuna E, Platt J, Scholkopf B (1998) Support vector machines. IEEE Intell Syst Their Appl 13: 18– 28
  13. [18]Aronson AR, Lang F-M (2010) An overview of MetaMap: historical perspective and recent advances. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 17: 229– 236 20442139 PMC2995713
  14. [19]Friedman C (1997) Towards a comprehensive medical language processing system: methods and issues. Proc Conf Am Med Inform Assoc AMIA Fall Symp 595– 599 PMC2233560 9357695
  15. [20]Denny JC, Irani PR, Wehbe FH, Smithers JD, Spickard A (2003) The KnowledgeMap project: development of a concept-based medical school curriculum database. AMIA Annu Symp Proc AMIA Symp 195– 199 14728161 PMC1480333
  16. [21]de Bruijn B, Cherry C, Kiritchenko S, Martin J, Zhu X (2011) Machine-learned solutions for three stages of clinical information extraction: the state of the art at i2b2 2010. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 18: 557– 562 21565856 PMC3168309
  17. [24]Le H-Q, Nguyen TM, Vu ST, Dang TH (2018) D3NER: Biomedical named entity recognition using CRF-biLSTM improved with fine-tuned embeddings of various linguistic information. Bioinforma Oxf Engl. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty356 29718118 · DOI
  18. [25]Habibi M, Weber L, Neves M, Wiegandt DL, Leser U (2017) Deep learning with word embeddings improves biomedical named entity recognition. Bioinforma Oxf Engl 33: i37– i48 PMC5870729 28881963
  19. [26]Liu Z, Yang M, Wang X, Chen Q, Tang B, Wang Z, Xu H (2017) Entity recognition from clinical texts via recurrent neural network. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0468-7 PMC5506598 28699566 · DOI
  20. [27]Jagannatha AN, Yu H (2016) Bidirectional RNN for Medical Event Detection in Electronic Health Records. Proc Conf Assoc Comput Linguist North Am Chapter Meet 2016: 473– 482 PMC5119627 27885364
  21. [28]Wu Y, Jiang M, Lei J, Xu H (2015) Named Entity Recognition in Chinese Clinical Text Using Deep Neural Network. Stud Health Technol Inform 216: 624– 628 26262126 PMC4624324
  22. [29]Wu Y, Jiang M, Xu J, Zhi D, Xu H (2017) Clinical Named Entity Recognition Using Deep Learning Models. AMIA Annu Symp Proc PMC5977567 29854252
  23. [30]Zhao S, Grishman R (2005) Extracting Relations with Integrated Information Using Kernel Methods In: Proc. 43rd Annu. Meet. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, pp 419– 426
  24. [31]Tikk D, Thomas P, Palaga P, Hakenberg J, Leser U (2010) A comprehensive benchmark of kernel methods to extract protein-protein interactions from literature. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1000837 20617200 PMC2895635
  25. [33]Brin S (1999) Extracting Patterns and Relations from the World Wide Web In: Sel. Pap. Int. Workshop World Wide Web Databases. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, UK, pp 172– 183
  26. [34]Tang B, Wu Y, Jiang M, Chen Y, Denny JC, Xu H (2013) A hybrid system for temporal information extraction from clinical text. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 20: 828– 835 23571849 PMC3756274
  27. [35]Xu J, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Wang J, Lee H-J, Xu H (2016) CD-REST: a system for extracting chemical-induced disease relation in literature. Database. doi: 10.1093/database/baw036 PMC4808251 27016700 · DOI
  28. [36]Wei C-H, Peng Y, Leaman R, Davis AP, Mattingly CJ, Li J, Wiegers TC, Lu Z (2016) Assessing the state of the art in biomedical relation extraction: overview of the BioCreative V chemical-disease relation (CDR) task. Database J Biol Databases Curation. doi: 10.1093/database/baw032 PMC4799720 26994911 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [37]Comeau DC, Islamaj Doğan R, Ciccarese P, (2013) BioC: a minimalist approach to interoperability for biomedical text processing. Database J Biol Databases Curation. doi: 10.1093/database/bat064 PMC3889917 24048470 · DOI
  30. [38]Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput 9: 1735– 1780 9377276
  31. [40]Soysal E, Wang J, Jiang M, Wu Y, Pakhomov S, Liu H, Xu H (2017) CLAMP - a toolkit for efficiently building customized clinical natural language processing pipelines. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx132 PMC7378877 29186491 · DOI
  32. [41]Wu Y, Xu J, Jiang M, Zhang Y, Xu H (2015) A Study of Neural Word Embeddings for Named Entity Recognition in Clinical Text. AMIA Annu Symp Proc AMIA Symp 2015: 1326– 1333 26958273 PMC4765694
  33. [44]Chapman AB, Peterson KS, Alba PR, DuVall SL, Patterson OV Hybrid system for adverse drug event detection. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 90: 16– 24
  34. [45]Dandala B, Joopudi V, Devarakonda M IBM Research System at MADE 2018: Detecting Adverse Drug Events from Electronic Health Records. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 90: 39– 47
  35. [46]Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P (2013) Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 35: 1798– 1828 23787338

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, X., Bian, J., Gong, Y., Hogan, W. R., & Wu, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Florida Health (US)
Corresponding author
Wu, Yonghui
Venue
Drug Safety
Published
2019-01
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
123-133
ISSN
  • 0114-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1942
OpenAlex
W2908038241
Cited by
66
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001427)
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (CDRN-1501-26692)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
adverse drug reactions, clinical natural language processing, relation extraction, pharmacovigilance, clinical notes, recurrent neural networks, long short-term memory
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Electronic Health Records, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review