Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug:2019:6416-6420.
doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2019/899.

What Does the Evidence Say? Models to Help Make Sense of the Biomedical Literature

Affiliations

What Does the Evidence Say? Models to Help Make Sense of the Biomedical Literature

Byron C Wallace. IJCAI (U S). 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Ideally decisions regarding medical treatments would be informed by the totality of the available evidence. The best evidence we currently have is in published natural language articles describing the conduct and results of clinical trials. Because these are unstructured, it is difficult for domain experts (e.g., physicians) to sort through and appraise the evidence pertaining to a given clinical question. Natural language technologies have the potential to improve access to the evidence via semi-automated processing of the biomedical literature. In this brief paper I highlight work on developing tasks, corpora, and models to support semi-automated evidence retrieval and extraction. The aim is to design models that can consume articles describing clinical trials and automatically extract from these key clinical variables and findings, and estimate their reliability. Completely automating 'machine reading' of evidence remains a distant aim given current technologies; the more immediate hope is to use such technologies to help domain experts access and make sense of unstructured biomedical evidence more efficiently, with the ultimate aim of improving patient care. Aside from their practical importance, these tasks pose core NLP challenges that directly motivate methodological innovation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Schematic of a model that can map from an unstructured article describing an RCT to structured data codifying the evidence that it reports. We envision such models primarily being used to help, not replace, domain experts.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
High-level overview of an envisioned semi-automated system for evidence retrieval and extraction. (A) An interactively trained classification/retrieval model facilitates rapid identification of trials relevant to a given clinical question, specified as a PICO frame. (B) Models next extract clinically salient information from relevant articles. (C) Domain experts then interact with the extracted evidence extracted by models and the underlying documents to find the data they are after; the idea is to make this process faster and less tedious.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bastian Hilda, Glasziou Paul, and Chalmers Iain. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med, 7(9):e1000326, 2010. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beltagy Iz, Cohan Arman, and Lo Kyle. SciBERT: Pretrained contextualized embeddings for scientific text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676, 2019.
    1. Blake Catherine and Lucic Ana. Automatic endpoint detection to support the systematic review process. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 56:42–56, 2015. - PubMed
    1. Boudin Florian, Nie Jian-Yun, and Dawes Martin. Positional language models for clinical information retrieval. In EMNLP, pages 108–115, 2010.
    1. Cohen Aaron M, Hersh William R, Peterson K, and Yen Po-Yin. Reducing workload in systematic review preparation using automated citation classification. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(2):206–219, 2006. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources