Cited by 71Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesNatural Language Processing TechniquesTopic Modeling

An end-to-end system to identify temporal relation in discharge summaries: 2012 i2b2 challenge

Open access
Xu, Yan, Wang, Yining, Liu, Tianren, Tsujii, Junichi, Chang, Eric I-Chao·2013·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To create an end-to-end system to identify temporal relation in discharge summaries for the 2012 i2b2 challenge. The challenge includes event extraction, timex extraction, and temporal relation identification. DESIGN: An end-to-end temporal relation system was developed. It includes three subsystems: an event extraction system (conditional random fields (CRF) name entity extraction and their corresponding attribute classifiers), a temporal extraction system (CRF name entity extraction, their corresponding attribute classifiers, and context-free grammar based normalization system), and a temporal relation system (10 multi-support vector machine (SVM) classifiers and a Markov logic networks inference system) using labeled sequential pattern mining, syntactic structures based on parse trees, and results from a coordination classifier. Micro-averaged precision (P), recall (R), averaged P&R (P&R), and F measure (F) were used to evaluate results. RESULTS: For event extraction, the system achieved 0.9415 (P), 0.8930 (R), 0.9166 (P&R), and 0.9166 (F). The accuracies of their type, polarity, and modality were 0.8574, 0.8585, and 0.8560, respectively. For timex extraction, the system achieved 0.8818, 0.9489, 0.9141, and 0.9141, respectively. The accuracies of their type, value, and modifier were 0.8929, 0.7170, and 0.8907, respectively. For temporal relation, the system achieved 0.6589, 0.7129, 0.6767, and 0.6849, respectively. For end-to-end temporal relation, it achieved 0.5904, 0.5944, 0.5921, and 0.5924, respectively. With the F measure used for evaluation, we were ranked first out of 14 competing teams (event extraction), first out of 14 teams (timex extraction), third out of 12 teams (temporal relation), and second out of seven teams (end-to-end temporal relation). CONCLUSIONS: The system achieved encouraging results, demonstrating the feasibility of the tasks defined by the i2b2 organizers. The experiment result demonstrates that both global and local information is useful in the 2012 challenge.

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 · 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001607

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?

  • Conventional NLP approaches for temporal information extraction suffer from limited scalability and generalizability and struggle to interpret implicit or vague temporal expressions.

    “Conventional natural language processing (NLP) approaches suffer from limited scalability and generalizability, and struggle to interpret implicit or vague temporal expressions.”

    From TimeX: Phenotype Onset Extraction from Clinical Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction describes ambiguity in identifying temporal expressions and says some values require contextual inference. The Discussion also reports that the authors’ normalization system fails in some cases involving implicit time changes. These passages support the difficulty with implicit or ambiguous expressions, but do not establish the broader claim that conventional NLP approaches have limited scalability or generalizability. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, T., Tsujii, J., & Chang, E. I.-C.
Affiliations
Microsoft Research Asia (China) (CN)
Corresponding author
Chang, Eric I-Chao
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2013-09
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
849-858
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2155276279
Cited by
71
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (U54LM008748, R13LM011411)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
discharge summaries, event extraction, Markov logic networks, conditional random fields, support vector machine, sequential pattern mining, clinical text mining, parse trees, named entity recognition, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Time, Information Storage and Retrieval, Translational Research, Biomedical, Electronic Health Records, Patient Discharge Summaries

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