Cited by 895Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareElectronic Health Records Systems

Extracting information from textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research

Open access
Savova, G. K., Kipper-Schuler, K. C., Hurdle, J. F., Meystre, S. M.·2008·Yearbook of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Summary: Objectives We examine recent published research on the extraction of information from textual documents in the Electronic Health Record (EHR). Methods Literature review of the research published after 1995, based on PubMed, conference proceedings, and the ACM Digital Library, as well as on relevant publications referenced in papers already included. Results 174 publications were selected and are discussed in this review in terms of methods used, pre-processing of textual documents, contextual features detection and analysis, extraction of information in general, extraction of codes and of information for decision-support and enrichment of the EHR, information extraction for surveillance, research, automated terminology management, and data mining, and de-identification of clinical text. Conclusions Performance of information extraction systems with clinical text has improved since the last systematic review in 1995, but they are still rarely applied outside of the laboratory they have been developed in. Competitive challenges for information extraction from clinical text, along with the availability of annotated clinical text corpora, and further improvements in system performance are important factors to stimulate advances in this field and to increase the acceptance and usage of these systems in concrete clinical and biomedical research contexts.

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 · 10.1055/s-0038-1638592

Cites

173 of 173 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?

  • EHR databases contain large heterogeneous data sets combining structured and formatted data elements with rich unstructured data.

    “The resulting underlying databases created by EHR systems contain large heterogeneous data sets that combine structured and formatted data elements such as diagnoses (International Classification of Diseases-10), procedures (Current Procedural Terminology® code), and medications (RxNorm), but also rich unstructured data such as clinical narratives, which represent over 80% of the data in EHRs (5).”
  • Clinical narratives represent over 80% of the data in EHRs.

    “clinical narratives, which represent over 80% of the data in EHRs (5).”

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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Carbonell JG, Hayes PJ. Natural Language Under- standing. In: Shapiro SC, editor. Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence: Wiley;1992. p. 660-77.
  2. Sager N, Friedman C, Chi E. The analysis and processing of clinical narrative. In: Salamon R, Blum B, Jørgensen M, editors. Medinfo 86; 1986; Amsterdam (Holland): Elsevier; 1986. p. 1101-5.
  3. Uzuner O, Goldstein I, Luo Y, Kohane I. Identify- ing Patient Smoking Status from Medical Dis- charge Records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008 January-February;15(1):14-24. Epub 2007 Oct 18.
  4. Miller G. WordNet: a dictionary browser. Proc of the First International Conference on Information and Data; 1985; Ontario, Canada; 1985.
  5. Fellbaum C. WordNet: An electronic lexical data- base. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Savova, G. K., Kipper-Schuler, K. C., Hurdle, J. F., & Meystre, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Meystre, S. M.
Venue
Yearbook of Medical Informatics
Published
2008-08
Volume
17
Issue
01
Pages
128-144
ISSN
  • 0943-4747 (ISSN-L)
  • 2364-0502
OpenAlex
W2114388055
Cited by
895
References
173
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 57
FWCI
13.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Yearbook of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
information extraction, clinical text, electronic health records, clinical text mining, clinical decision support, clinical surveillance, de-identification, text preprocessing, contextual features
MeSH terms
Humans, Natural Language Processing, Population Surveillance, Information Storage and Retrieval, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Vocabulary, Controlled, Biomedical Research

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