Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 473

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating temporal relations in clinical text: 2012 i2b2 Challenge

Open access
Sun, Weiyi, Rumshisky, Anna, Uzuner, Ozlem·2013·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Sixth Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) Natural Language Processing Challenge for Clinical Records focused on the temporal relations in clinical narratives. The organizers provided the research community with a corpus of discharge summaries annotated with temporal information, to be used for the development and evaluation of temporal reasoning systems. 18 teams from around the world participated in the challenge. During the workshop, participating teams presented comprehensive reviews and analysis of their systems, and outlined future research directions suggested by the challenge contributions. METHODS: The challenge evaluated systems on the information extraction tasks that targeted: (1) clinically significant events, including both clinical concepts such as problems, tests, treatments, and clinical departments, and events relevant to the patient's clinical timeline, such as admissions, transfers between departments, etc; (2) temporal expressions, referring to the dates, times, durations, or frequencies phrases in the clinical text. The values of the extracted temporal expressions had to be normalized to an ISO specification standard; and (3) temporal relations, between the clinical events and temporal expressions. Participants determined pairs of events and temporal expressions that exhibited a temporal relation, and identified the temporal relation between them. RESULTS: For event detection, statistical machine learning (ML) methods consistently showed superior performance. While ML and rule based methods seemed to detect temporal expressions equally well, the best systems overwhelmingly adopted a rule based approach for value normalization. For temporal relation classification, the systems using hybrid approaches that combined ML and heuristics based methods produced the best results.

Overview

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-2013-001628

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 473

Metadata

Authors
Sun, W., Rumshisky, A., & Uzuner, O.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2013-09
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
806-813
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2137407193
Cited by
473
References
6
FWCI
17.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating temporal relations in clinical text: 2012 i2b2 Challenge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001628
The paper
Sun, W., Rumshisky, A., & Uzuner, O. (2013). Evaluating temporal relations in clinical text: 2012 i2b2 Challenge. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001628

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.