What Does the Evidence Say? Models to Help Make Sense of the Biomedical Literature
- PMID: 34025086
- PMCID: PMC8136417
- DOI: 10.24963/ijcai.2019/899
What Does the Evidence Say? Models to Help Make Sense of the Biomedical Literature
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.
Figures


Similar articles
-
A comparison of word embeddings for the biomedical natural language processing.J Biomed Inform. 2018 Nov;87:12-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.09.008. Epub 2018 Sep 12. J Biomed Inform. 2018. PMID: 30217670 Free PMC article.
-
Automatically Detecting Failures in Natural Language Processing Tools for Online Community Text.J Med Internet Res. 2015 Aug 31;17(8):e212. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4612. J Med Internet Res. 2015. PMID: 26323337 Free PMC article.
-
SemBioNLQA: A semantic biomedical question answering system for retrieving exact and ideal answers to natural language questions.Artif Intell Med. 2020 Jan;102:101767. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2019.101767. Epub 2019 Nov 28. Artif Intell Med. 2020. PMID: 31980104
-
A systematic review of natural language processing for classification tasks in the field of incident reporting and adverse event analysis.Int J Med Inform. 2019 Dec;132:103971. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.103971. Epub 2019 Oct 5. Int J Med Inform. 2019. PMID: 31630063
-
Natural Language Processing in Oncology: A Review.JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jun 1;2(6):797-804. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0213. JAMA Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27124593 Review.
Cited by
-
Outcome Prediction from Behaviour Change Intervention Evaluations using a Combination of Node and Word Embedding.AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2022 Feb 21;2021:486-495. eCollection 2021. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2022. PMID: 35308987 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Beltagy Iz, Cohan Arman, and Lo Kyle. SciBERT: Pretrained contextualized embeddings for scientific text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676, 2019.
-
- Blake Catherine and Lucic Ana. Automatic endpoint detection to support the systematic review process. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 56:42–56, 2015. - PubMed
-
- Boudin Florian, Nie Jian-Yun, and Dawes Martin. Positional language models for clinical information retrieval. In EMNLP, pages 108–115, 2010.
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources