Cited by 35Machine Learning in HealthcareBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesTopic Modeling

Clinical Reading Comprehension: A Thorough Analysis of the emrQA Dataset

Open access
Yue, Xiang, Jimenez Gutierrez, Bernal, Sun, Huan·2020·Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Machine reading comprehension has made great progress in recent years owing to largescale annotated datasets.In the clinical domain, however, creating such datasets is quite difficult due to the domain expertise required for annotation.Recently, Pampari et al. (2018) tackled this issue by using expert-annotated question templates and existing i2b2 annotations to create emrQA, the first large-scale dataset for question answering (QA) based on clinical notes.In this paper, we provide an indepth analysis of this dataset and the clinical reading comprehension (CliniRC) task.From our qualitative analysis, we find that (i) emrQA answers are often incomplete, and (ii) emrQA questions are often answerable without using domain knowledge.From our quantitative experiments, surprising results include that (iii) using a small sampled subset (5%-20%), we can obtain roughly equal performance compared to the model trained on the entire dataset, (iv) this performance is close to human expert's performance, and (v) BERT models do not beat the best performing base model.Following our analysis of the emrQA, we further explore two desired aspects of CliniRC systems: the ability to utilize clinical domain knowledge and to generalize to unseen questions and contexts.We argue that both should be considered when creating future datasets.1

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 · 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.410

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • Clinical NLP tasks are greatly limited by their overreliance on the same handful of data sources, small dataset sizes (typically thousands of examples), highly repetitive content, and low coverage of use cases.

    “However, these NLP tasks are greatly limited by their overreliance on the same handful of data sources74, small dataset sizes (typically thousands of examples)74,76, highly repetitive content77, and low coverage of use cases20.”

    From The shaky foundations of large language models and foundation models for electronic health records (2023) · cites this paper as [77]

    The Related Work section says clinical QA and reading comprehension lack large-scale annotated data, supporting the concern about dataset size. But the paper does not establish that clinical NLP tasks typically have only thousands of examples or overrely on the same handful of data sources; §4.1 reports that emrQA alone has more than one million questions. The other limitations in the citing sentence are attached to different citations. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Lynette Hirschman, Marc Light, Eric Breck, and John D Burger. 1999. Deep read: A reading com- prehension system. In ACL'1999, pages 325-332.
  2. Minsuk Lee, James Cimino, Hai Ran Zhu, Carl Sable, Vijay Shanker, John Ely, and Hong Yu. 2006. Be- yond information retrieval-medical question an- swering. In AMIA annual symposium proceedings, volume 2006, page 469.
  3. Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word repre- sentations. In NAACL-HLT'18, pages 2227-2237.
  4. Simon Šuster and Walter Daelemans. 2018. Clicr: A dataset of clinical case reports for machine reading comprehension. In NAACL-HLT'18, pages 1551- 1563.
  5. Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: En- hanced language representation with informative en- tities. In ACL'19.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yue, X., Jimenez Gutierrez, B., & Sun, H.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2020
Pages
4474-4486
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035129496
Cited by
33
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.29
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1815674)
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (ME-2017C1-6413)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-17-1-0412, W911NF)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
medical question answering, clinical notes, i2b2, data annotation, question templates, BERT

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