Cited by 66Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesMachine Learning in HealthcareTopic Modeling

Extracting Symptoms and their Status from Clinical Conversations

Open access
Du, Nan, Chen, Kai, Kannan, Anjuli, Tran, Linh, Chen, Yuhui, Shafran, Izhak·2019·Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

This paper describes novel models tailored for a new application, that of extracting the symptoms mentioned in clinical conversations along with their status. Lack of any publicly available corpus in this privacy-sensitive domain led us to develop our own corpus, consisting of about 3K conversations annotated by professional medical scribes. We propose two novel deep learning approaches to infer the symptom names and their status: (1) a new hierarchical span-attribute tagging (SA-T) model, trained using curriculum learning, and (2) a variant of sequence-to-sequence model which decodes the symptoms and their status from a few speaker turns within a sliding window over the conversation. This task stems from a realistic application of assisting medical providers in capturing symptoms mentioned by patients from their clinical conversations. To reflect this application, we define multiple metrics. From inter-rater agreement, we find that the task is inherently difficult. We conduct comprehensive evaluations on several contrasting conditions and observe that the performance of the models range from an F-score of 0.5 to 0.8 depending on the condition. Our analysis not only reveals the inherent challenges of the task, but also provides useful directions to improve the models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/p19-1087

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 66

Authors
Du, N., Chen, K., Kannan, A., Tran, L., Chen, Y., & Shafran, I.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2019
Pages
915-925
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963108794
Cited by
66
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5
FWCI
30.96
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)
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
symptom extraction, clinical conversation, symptom status, curriculum learning, sequence-to-sequence models, sliding window decoding, interobserver agreement, annotated corpus

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