Cited by 62Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareMedical Coding and Health Information

MCN: A comprehensive corpus for medical concept normalization

Open access
Luo, Yen-Fu, Sun, Weiyi, Rumshisky, Anna·2019·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Normalization of clinical text involves linking different ways of talking about the same clinical concept to the same term in the standardized vocabulary. To date, very few annotated corpora for normalization have been available, and existing corpora so far have been limited in scope and only dealt with the normalization of diseases and disorders. In this paper, we describe the annotation methodology we developed in order to create a new manually annotated wide-coverage corpus for clinical concept normalization, the Medical Concept Normalization (MCN) corpus. In order to ensure wider coverage, we applied normalization to the text spans corresponding to the medical problems, treatments, and tests in the named entity corpus released for the fourth i2b2/VA shared task. In contrast to previous annotation efforts, we do not assign multiple concept labels to the named entities that do not map to a unique concept in the controlled vocabulary. Nor do we leave that named entity without a concept label. Instead, our normalization method that splits such named entities, resolving some of the core ambiguity issues. Lastly, we supply a sieve-based normalization baseline for MCN which combines MetaMap with multiple exact match components. The resulting corpus consists of 100 discharge summaries and provides normalization for the total of 10,919 concept mentions, using 3792 unique concepts from two controlled vocabularies. Our inter-annotator agreement is 67.69% pre-adjudication and 74.20% post-adjudication. Our sieve-based normalization baseline for MCN achieves 77% accuracy in cross-validation. We also detail the challenges of creating a normalization corpus, including the limitations deriving from both the mention span selection and the ambiguity and inconsistency within the current standardized terminologies. In order to facilitate the development of improved concept normalization methods, the MCN corpus will be publicly released to the research community in a shared task in 2019.

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 · 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103132

Cites

28 of 28 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

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. W. Boag, E. Sergeeva, S. Kulshreshtha, P. Szolovits, A. Rumshisky, T. Naumann, Cliner 2.0: Accessible and accurate clinical concept extraction, arXiv preprint arXiv:<1803.02245>.
  2. K. Rim, Mae2: Portable annotation tool for general natural language use, Proceedings of 12th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, 2016, pp. 75-80.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luo, Y.-F., Sun, W., & Rumshisky, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Lowell (US)
  • Nuance Communications (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Luo, Yen-Fu
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
92
Pages
103132
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2917968119
Cited by
62
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Philips HealthCare
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
annotated corpus, discharge summaries, named entity resolution, controlled vocabulary, MetaMap, inter-annotator agreement, terminological ambiguity, shared task
MeSH terms
Humans, Natural Language Processing, Information Storage and Retrieval, Vocabulary, Controlled, Electronic Health Records, Data Curation

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