A flexible framework for recognizing events, temporal expressions, and temporal relations in clinical text
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a natural language processing method for the automatic recognition of events, temporal expressions, and temporal relations in clinical records. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A combination of supervised, unsupervised, and rule-based methods were used. Supervised methods include conditional random fields and support vector machines. A flexible automated feature selection technique was used to select the best subset of features for each supervised task. Unsupervised methods include Brown clustering on several corpora, which result in our method being considered semisupervised. RESULTS: On the 2012 Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) shared task data, we achieved an overall event F1-measure of 0.8045, an overall temporal expression F1-measure of 0.6154, an overall temporal link detection F1-measure of 0.5594, and an end-to-end temporal link detection F1-measure of 0.5258. The most competitive system was our event recognition method, which ranked third out of the 14 participants in the event task. DISCUSSION: Analysis reveals the event recognition method has difficulty determining which modifiers to include/exclude in the event span. The temporal expression recognition method requires significantly more normalization rules, although many of these rules apply only to a small number of cases. Finally, the temporal relation recognition method requires more advanced medical knowledge and could be improved by separating the single discourse relation classifier into multiple, more targeted component classifiers. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing events and temporal expressions can be achieved accurately by combining supervised and unsupervised methods, even when only minimal medical knowledge is available. Temporal normalization and temporal relation recognition, however, are far more dependent on the modeling of medical knowledge.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 [18]
The Background (page not available) says temporal information can be ambiguous and that extraction methods need to be robust across hospitals, doctors, and record systems. The Results (page not available) identify normalization as the hardest temporal-expression task because it often requires discourse knowledge. These passages support difficulty with ambiguous or implicit timing and a concern about generalizability, but they do not establish that conventional NLP approaches generally have limited scalability. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Sun W, Rumshisky A, Uzuner O. Evaluating temporal relations in clinical text: 2012 i2b2 challenge overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013;20:806-13.
- Verhagen M, Gaizauskas R, Schilder F, et al. The TempEval challenge: identifying temporal relations in text. Language Resour Eval 2009;43:161-79.
- Verhagen M, Sauíi R, Caselli T. James pustejovsky. SemEval-2010 task 13: TempEval-2. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation; 2010:57-62.
- UzZaman N, Llorens H, Allen JF, et al. TempEval-3: Evaluating Events, Time Expressions, and Temporal Relations. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. arXiv.1206.5333v1, 2012. · arXiv
- Verhagen M, Mani I, Saurí R, et al. Automating temporal annotation with TARSQI. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Demo Session, 2005.
- Bethard S, Martin JH. CU-TMP: Temporal relation classification using syntactic and semantic Features. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2007:129-32.
- Badulescu A, Srikanth M. LCC-SRN: LCC's SRN system for semEval 2007 task 4. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2007:215-18.
- Cheng Y, Asahara M, Matsumoto Y. NAIST.Japan: temporal relation identification using dependency parsed tree. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2007:245-8.
- Hepple M, Setzer A, Gaizauskas R. USFD: preliminary exploration of features and classifiers for the tempEval-2007 task. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2007:438-41.
- Grover C, Tobin R, Alex B, et al. Edinburgh-LTG: tempEval-2 system description. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2010:333-6.
- Kolomiyets O M-F Moens. KUL: recognition and normalization of temporal expressions. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval), Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, 2010:325-8.
- Boro ES. ID 392:TERSEO + T2T3 transducer. A systems for recognizing and normalizing TIMEX3. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation; 2010:317-20.
- Llorens H, Saquete E, Navarro B. TIPSem (English and Spanish): evaluating CRFs and semantic roles in TempEval-2. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2010:284-91.
- UzZaman N, Allen J. TRIPS and tRIOS system for TempEval-2: extracting temporal information from text. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2010:276-83.
- Derczynski L, Gaizauskas R. USFD2: annotating temporal expresions and TLINKs for TempEval-2. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2010:337-40.
- Vicente-Díez MT, Moreno-Schneider J, Mart´inez P. UC3M system: determining the extent, type and value of time expressions in TempEval-2. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval); 2010:329-32.
- Uzuner Ö, Imre S, Cadag E. Extracting medication information from clinical text. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010;17:514-18.
- Uzuner Ö, South B, Shen S, et al. uVall. 2010 i2b2/VA challenge on concepts, assertions, and relations in clinical text. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18:552-6.
- Uzuner Ö, Bodnari A, Shen S, et al. Evaluating the state of the art in coreference resolution for electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18:552-6.
- Pustejovsky J, Castano J, Ingria R, et al. TimeML: Robust specification of event and temporal expressions in text. IWCS-5 Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics; 2003.
- Tsuruoka Y, Tateishi Y, Kim J-D, et al. Developing a robust part-of-speech tagger for biomedical text. Proceedings of the 10th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics; 2005:382-92.
- Strotgen J, Gertz M. Multilingual and cross-domain temporal tagging. Lang Resour Eval 2012. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10579-012-9179-y/fulltext.html · DOI
- A Chang, C X Manning D. SUTime: A library for recognizing and normalizing time expressions. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation; 2012.
- Christopher Northwood. TERNIP: temporal expression recognition and normalisation in Python [PhD thesis]. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 2010.
- Roberts K, Sanda M. A flexible framework for deriving assertions from electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18:568-73.
- Brown PF, deSouza PV, Mercer RL, et al. Class-based n-gram models of natural language. Comput Linguist 1992;18:467-79.
- Turian J, Ratinov L, Bengio Y. Word representations: a simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics; 2010:384-94.
- Pudil P, Novovičova J, Kittler J. Floating search methods in feature selection. Pattern Recogn Lett 1994;15:1119-25.
- Fan R-E, Chang K-W, Hsieh C-J, et al. LIBLINEAR: a library for large linear classification. J Mach Learning Res 2008;9:1871-4.
- Llorens H, Derczynski L, Gaizauskas R, et al. TIMEN: an open temporal expression normalisation resource. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation; 2012.
- de Marneffe M-C, MacCartney B, Manning C, et al. Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation; 2006.
- Naushad N, Allen JF. Temporal evaluation. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Short Papers); 2011.
- Sarawagi S, Cohen WW. Semi-Markov conditional random fields for information extraction. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems; 2004:1185-92.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Electronic health records-driven phenotyping: challenges, recent advances, and perspectives
Pathak, J., Kho, A. N., & Denny, J. C. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002428 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
TimeX: Phenotype Onset Extraction from Clinical Narratives
Chen, F., Jiang, S., Nguyen, Q. M., Ta, C. N., Wang, K., Chung, W. K., & Weng, C. (2026) · npj Health Systems · doi:10.1038/s44401-026-00099-8
- Authors
- Roberts, K., Rink, B., & Harabagiu, S. M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
- Corresponding author
- Roberts, Kirk
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 867-875
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC3756268
- OpenAlex
- W2160241709
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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 › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- event recognition, temporal expressions, temporal relations, clinical text, medical records, time normalization, feature selection, conditional random fields, support vector machine
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Time, Information Storage and Retrieval, Translational Research, Biomedical, Electronic Health Records
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