Cited by 26Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareTopic Modeling

Assertion Detection in Clinical Notes: Medical Language Models to the Rescue?

Open access
van Aken, Betty, Trajanovska, Ivana, Siu, Amy, Mayrdorfer, Manuel, Budde, Klemens, Loeser, Alexander·2021·Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Medical Conversations

Abstract

In order to provide high-quality care, health professionals must efficiently identify the presence, possibility, or absence of symptoms, treatments and other relevant entities in freetext clinical notes.Such is the task of assertion detection -to identify the assertion class (present, possible, absent) of an entity based on textual cues in unstructured text.We evaluate state-of-the-art medical language models on the task and show that they outperform the baselines in all three classes.As transferability is especially important in the medical domain we further study how the best performing model behaves on unseen data from two other medical datasets.For this purpose we introduce a newly annotated set of 5,000 assertions for the publicly available MIMIC-III dataset.We conclude with an error analysis that reveals situations in which the models still go wrong and points towards future research directions.

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/v1/2021.nlpmc-1.5

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • The trained BERT-based model from Aken et al. effectively distinguishes affirmed from negated clinical concepts.

    “Phenotype negation detection was performed using the trained BERT-based model from Aken et al.47, which effectively distinguishes affirmed from negated clinical concepts.”

    From TimeX: Phenotype Onset Extraction from Clinical Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [47]

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: 2

  1. Berry de Bruijn, Colin Cherry, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Joel D. Martin, and Xiaodan Zhu. 2011b. Machine- learned solutions for three stages of clinical informa- tion extraction: the state of the art at i2b2 2010. J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc., 18(5):557-562.
  2. Zhong Qian, Peifeng Li, Qiaoming Zhu, Guodong Zhou, Zhunchen Luo, and Wei Luo. 2016. Specu- lation and Negation Scope Detection via Convolu- tional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 815-825.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Aken, B., Trajanovska, I., Siu, A., Mayrdorfer, M., Budde, K., & Loeser, A.
Affiliations
  • Berliner Hochschule für Technik (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Medical Conversations
Published
2021
Pages
35-40
OpenAlex
W3171324702
Cited by
25
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
10.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Funders
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie
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 › Topic Modeling
Keywords
clinical notes, clinical language models, transferability, MIMIC-III, error analysis, clinical text

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