Cited by 1,967Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareNatural Language Processing Techniques

Mayo clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (cTAKES): architecture, component evaluation and applications

Open access
Savova, Guergana K, Masanz, James J, Ogren, Philip V, Zheng, Jiaping, Sohn, Sunghwan, Kipper-Schuler, Karin C, Chute, Christopher G·2010·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

We aim to build and evaluate an open-source natural language processing system for information extraction from electronic medical record clinical free-text. We describe and evaluate our system, the clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (cTAKES), released open-source at http://www.ohnlp.org. The cTAKES builds on existing open-source technologies-the Unstructured Information Management Architecture framework and OpenNLP natural language processing toolkit. Its components, specifically trained for the clinical domain, create rich linguistic and semantic annotations. Performance of individual components: sentence boundary detector accuracy=0.949; tokenizer accuracy=0.949; part-of-speech tagger accuracy=0.936; shallow parser F-score=0.924; named entity recognizer and system-level evaluation F-score=0.715 for exact and 0.824 for overlapping spans, and accuracy for concept mapping, negation, and status attributes for exact and overlapping spans of 0.957, 0.943, 0.859, and 0.580, 0.939, and 0.839, respectively. Overall performance is discussed against five applications. The cTAKES annotations are the foundation for methods and modules for higher-level semantic processing of clinical free-text.

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/jamia.2009.001560

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • Dictionary- and rule-based annotation systems are often limited in their report coverage and generalizability across institutions.

    “While analysis tools [12-14] have been developed to extract key clinical concepts and their attributes from biomedical text and convert them into a structured format, such dictionary- and rule-based annotation systems are often limited in their report coverage and generalizability across institutions.”

    From RadGraph: Extracting Clinical Entities and Relations from Radiology Reports (2021) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Remaining challenges section says cTAKES’ dictionary-based recognition misses complex synonyms, supporting a limitation in concept coverage. It does not establish that such systems are often limited in report coverage or generalizability across institutions; the Global evaluation and applications section instead highlights cTAKES’ portability to data from other institutions. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the work by Afshar et al., clinical concepts were extracted from all available notes within each patient encounter using cTAKES.

    “In the work by Afshar et al.50, clinical concepts, such as diseases, symptoms, anatomical sites, medications, and procedures, were extracted from all available notes within each patient encounter using the NLP engine, clinical Text And Knowledge Extraction System (cTAKES)86.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Christensen L, Haug P, Fiszman M. MPLUS: a probabilistic medical language understanding system. Proceedings of the ACL-02 workshop on Natural language processing in the biomedical domain -Volume 3. 2002:29e36. Philadelphia, PA.
  2. Ogren P, Savova G, Chute C. Constructing evaluation corpora for automated clinical named entity recognition. Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Proc LREC 2008:3143e50. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/. Marrakesh, Morocco.
  3. Li D, Schuler K, Savova G. A comparison between CRFs and SVMs in Disorder Named Entity Recognition in Clinic Texts. Intelligent Data Analysis in Biomedicine and Pharmacology (IDAMAP), 2008. A colloquium in conjunction with the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium 2008 in Washington, DC, USA: 57e62.
  4. Savova G, Ogren P, Duffy P, et al. Mayo clinic system for patient smoking status classification. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15:25e8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Savova, G. K., Masanz, J. J., Ogren, P. V., Zheng, J., Sohn, S., Kipper-Schuler, K. C., & Chute, C. G.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
Corresponding author
Savova, Guergana K
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2010-09
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
507-513
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2146089916
Cited by
1,967
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 120 · 2021: 169 · 2020: 192 · 2019: 202 · 2018: 135 · 2017: 129 · 2016: 118 · 2015: 130 · 2014: 108 · 2013: 118 · 2012: 70
FWCI
30.34
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)
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 › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
cTAKES, clinical text mining, clinical information extraction, electronic health records, clinical text, OpenNLP, sentence segmentation, tokenization, part-of-speech tagging, shallow parsing, named entity recognition, concept mapping, negation detection, semantic annotation
MeSH terms
Natural Language Processing, Information Storage and Retrieval, Biomedical Research, 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