Cited by 129Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareTopic Modeling

A study of deep learning approaches for medication and adverse drug event extraction from clinical text

Open access
Wei, Qiang, Ji, Zongcheng, Li, Zhiheng, Du, Jingcheng, Wang, Jingqi, Xu, Jun, Xiang, Yang, Tiryaki, Firat +4 more·2020·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objective: This article presents our approaches to extraction of medications and associated adverse drug events (ADEs) from clinical documents, which is the second track of the 2018 National NLP Clinical Challenges (n2c2) shared task. Materials and Methods: The clinical corpus used in this study was from the MIMIC-III database and the organizers annotated 303 documents for training and 202 for testing. Our system consists of 2 components: a named entity recognition (NER) and a relation classification (RC) component. For each component, we implemented deep learning-based approaches (eg, BI-LSTM-CRF) and compared them with traditional machine learning approaches, namely, conditional random fields for NER and support vector machines for RC, respectively. In addition, we developed a deep learning-based joint model that recognizes ADEs and their relations to medications in 1 step using a sequence labeling approach. To further improve the performance, we also investigated different ensemble approaches to generating optimal performance by combining outputs from multiple approaches. Results: Our best-performing systems achieved F1 scores of 93.45% for NER, 96.30% for RC, and 89.05% for end-to-end evaluation, which ranked #2, #1, and #1 among all participants, respectively. Additional evaluations show that the deep learning-based approaches did outperform traditional machine learning algorithms in both NER and RC. The joint model that simultaneously recognizes ADEs and their relations to medications also achieved the best performance on RC, indicating its promise for relation extraction. Conclusion: In this study, we developed deep learning approaches for extracting medications and their attributes such as ADEs, and demonstrated its superior performance compared with traditional machine learning algorithms, indicating its uses in broader NER and RC tasks in the medical domain.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocz063

Cites

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Luo Y, Thompson WK, Herr TM, et al. Natural language processing for EHR-based pharmacovigilance: a structured review. Drug Saf 2017; 40 (11): 1075-89.
  2. Coloma PM, Trifir o G, Patadia V, et al. Postmarketing safety surveillance. Drug Saf 2013; 36 (3): 183-97.
  3. Harpaz R, Callahan A, Tamang S, et al. Text mining for adverse drug events: the promise, challenges, and state of the art. Drug Saf 2014; 37 (10): 777-90.
  4. Wang X, Hripcsak G, Markatou M, et al. Active computerized pharmaco- vigilance using natural language processing, statistics, and electronic health records: a feasibility study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (3): 328-37.
  5. Haerian K, Varn D, Vaidya S, et al. Detection of pharmacovigilance- related adverse events using electronic health records and automated methods. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012; 92 (2): 228-34.
  6. Nadkarni PM. Drug safety surveillance using de-identified EMR and claims data: issues and challenges. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (6): 671-4.
  7. Phansalkar S, Hoffman JM, Hurdle JF, et al. Understanding pharmacist decision making for adverse drug event (ADE) detection. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15 (2): 266-75.
  8. Xu H, Stenner SP, Doan S, et al. MedEx: a medication information extrac- tion system for clinical narratives. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (1): 19-24.
  9. Patrick J, Li M. High accuracy information extraction of medication in- formation from clinical notes: 2009 i2b2 medication extraction challenge. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (5): 524-7.
  10. Sohn S, Clark C, Halgrim SR, et al. MedXN: an open source medication extraction and normalization tool for clinical text. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (5): 858-65.
  11. Huang C-C, Lu Z. Community challenges in biomedical text mining over 10 years: success, failure, and the future. Brief Bioinform 2016; 17 (1): 132-44.
  12. Uzuner O, Solti I, Cadag E. Extracting medication information from clini- cal text. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (5): 514-8.
  13. Roberts K, Demner-Fushman D, Tonning JM. Overview of the TAC 2017 adverse reaction extraction from drug labels track. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Text Analysis Conference. Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 2017. https:// tac.nist.gov/publications/2017/additional.papers/TAC2017.ADR_over- view.proceedings.pdf (accessed 6 Jan 2019).
  14. Jagannatha A, Liu F, Liu W, et al. Overview of the first natural language processing challenge for extracting medication, indication, and adverse drug events from electronic health record notes (MADE 1.0). Drug Saf 2019; 42 (1): 99-111.
  15. Chapman AB, Peterson KS, Alba PR, et al. Detecting adverse drug events with rapidly trained classification models. Drug Saf 2019: 42 (1): 147-56.
  16. Lample G, Ballesteros M, Subramanian S, et al. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT. San Diego, CA; 2016: 260-70.
  17. Huang Z, Xu W, Yu K. Bidirectional LSTM-CRF models for sequence tagging. CoRR abs/1508.01991; 2015. · arXiv
  18. Jagannatha AN, Yu H. Structured prediction models for RNN based se- quence labeling in clinical text. Proc Conf Empir Methods Nat Lang Process 2016; 2016: 856-65.
  19. Dandala B, Joopudi V, Devarakonda M, et al. IBM Research System at MADE 2018: Detecting Adverse Drug Events from Electronic Health Records. In: Proceedings of Machine Learning Research; 2018: 39-47.
  20. Dandala B, Joopudi V, Devarakonda M. Adverse drug events detection in clinical notes by jointly modeling entities and relations using neural net- works. Drug Saf 2019; 42 (1): 135-46.
  21. Li Q, Ji H. Incremental Joint Extraction of Entity Mentions and Relations. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics. Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2014: 402-12.
  22. Miwa M, Bansal M. End-to-end relation extraction using LSTMs on sequences and tree structures. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Berlin, Germany; 2016: 1105-16.
  23. Johnson AEW, Pollard TJ, Shen L, et al. MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database. Sci Data 2016; 3: 160035.
  24. Soysal E, Wang J, Jiang M, et al. CLAMP -a toolkit for efficiently build- ing customized clinical natural language processing pipelines. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 2017; 25(3):331-36.
  25. Liu Z, Tang B, Wang X, et al. De-identification of clinical notes via recur- rent neural network and conditional random field. J Biomed Inform 2017; 75: S34-42.
  26. Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, et al. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: NIPS 2013 Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Lake Tahoe, Nevada; 2013: 3111-9.
  27. Lee H-J, Zhang Y, Xu J, et al. UTHealth at SemEval-2016 task 12: an end- to-end system for temporal information extraction from clinical notes. In: Proceedings of SemEval-2016. San Diego, California; 2016: 1292-7.
  28. Zhang D, Wang D. Relation classification via recurrent neural network. CoRR arXiv:1508.01006; 2015. · arXiv
  29. Zeng D, Liu K, Lai S, et al. Relation classification via convolutional deep neural network. In: Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Dublin, Ireland: 2014. 2335- 44.
  30. Lin BY, Lu W. Neural adaptation layers for cross-domain named entity recognition. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing. Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2018: 2012-22.
  31. Devlin J, Chang M-W, Lee K, et al. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirec- tional Transformers for Language Understanding. CoRR arXiv1810.04805; 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 (accessed 12 Oct 2018). · arXiv
  32. Wei W-Q, Cronin RM, Xu H, et al. Development and evaluation of an en- semble resource linking medications to their indications. J Am Med In- form Assoc 2013; 20 (5): 954-61.
  33. Peters ME, Ammar W, Bhagavatula C, et al. Semi-supervised sequence tagging with bidirectional language models. CoRR arXiv:1705.00108; 2017. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, Q., Ji, Z., Li, Z., Du, J., Wang, J., Xu, J., Xiang, Y., Tiryaki, F., Wu, S., Zhang, Y., Tao, C., & Xu, H.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Dalian University of Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Xu, Hua
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2019-05-28
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
13-21
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2947903144
Cited by
129
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Library of Medicine (5R01LM010681)
  • National Cancer Institute (U24 CA194215)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (5U01TR002062)
  • Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP160015)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
medication extraction, adverse drug reactions, clinical text, named entity recognition, relation classification, joint entity and relation extraction, sequence labeling, BiLSTM-CRF, ensemble learning, clinical natural language processing, MIMIC-III
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Algorithms, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Information Storage and Retrieval, Narration, 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