OBJECTIVE: The extraction of specific data from electronic medical records (EMR) remains tedious and is often performed manually. Natural language processing (NLP) programs have been developed to identify and extract information within clinical narrative text. We performed a study to assess the validity of an NLP program to accurately identify patients with prostate cancer and to retrieve pertinent pathologic information from their EMR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of a prospectively collected database including patients from the Southern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Region that underwent prostate biopsies during a 2-week period. A NLP program was used to identify patients with prostate biopsies that were positive for prostatic adenocarcinoma from all pathology reports within this period. The application then processed 100 consecutive patients with prostate adenocarcinoma to extract 10 variables from their pathology reports. The extraction and retrieval of information by NLP was then compared to a blinded manual review. RESULTS: A consecutive series of 18,453 pathology reports were evaluated. NLP correctly detected 117 out of 118 patients (99.1%) with prostatic adenocarcinoma after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. NLP had a positive predictive value of 99.1% with a 99.1% sensitivity and a 99.9% specificity to correctly identify patients with prostatic adenocarcinoma after biopsy. The overall ability of the NLP application to accurately extract variables from the pathology reports was 97.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Natural language processing is a reliable and accurate method to identify select patients and to extract relevant data from an existing EMR in order to establish a prospective clinical database.
OBJECTIVE: The extraction of specific data from electronic medical records (EMR) remains tedious and is often performed manually. Natural language processing (NLP) programs have been developed to identify and extract information within clinical narrative text. We performed a study to assess the validity of an NLP program to accurately identify patients with prostate cancer and to retrieve pertinent pathologic information from their EMR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of a prospectively collected database including patients from the Southern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Region that underwent prostate biopsies during a 2-week period. A NLP program was used to identify patients with prostate biopsies that were positive for prostatic adenocarcinoma from all pathology reports within this period. The application then processed 100 consecutive patients with prostate adenocarcinoma to extract 10 variables from their pathology reports. The extraction and retrieval of information by NLP was then compared to a blinded manual review. RESULTS: A consecutive series of 18,453 pathology reports were evaluated. NLP correctly detected 117 out of 118 patients (99.1%) with prostatic adenocarcinoma after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. NLP had a positive predictive value of 99.1% with a 99.1% sensitivity and a 99.9% specificity to correctly identify patients with prostatic adenocarcinoma after biopsy. The overall ability of the NLP application to accurately extract variables from the pathology reports was 97.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Natural language processing is a reliable and accurate method to identify select patients and to extract relevant data from an existing EMR in order to establish a prospective clinical database.
Authors: Ashish K Jha; Catherine M DesRoches; Eric G Campbell; Karen Donelan; Sowmya R Rao; Timothy G Ferris; Alexandra Shields; Sara Rosenbaum; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Harvey J Murff; Fern FitzHenry; Michael E Matheny; Nancy Gentry; Kristen L Kotter; Kimberly Crimin; Robert S Dittus; Amy K Rosen; Peter L Elkin; Steven H Brown; Theodore Speroff Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Richard H White; Banafsheh Sadeghi; Daniel J Tancredi; Patricia Zrelak; Joanne Cuny; Pradeep Sama; Garth H Utter; Jeffrey J Geppert; Patrick S Romano Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Edmund C Lau; Fionna S Mowat; Michael A Kelsh; Jason C Legg; Nicole M Engel-Nitz; Heather N Watson; Helen L Collins; Robert J Nordyke; Joanna L Whyte Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Marjorie G Zauderer; Aleksandr Grigorenko; Paul May; Nicholas Kastango; Isaac Wagner; Aryeh Caroline; Mark G Kris Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-06
Authors: George Karystianis; Alejo J Nevado; Chi-Hun Kim; Azad Dehghan; John A Keane; Goran Nenadic Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Anobel Y Odisho; Mark Bridge; Mitchell Webb; Niloufar Ameli; Renu S Eapen; Frank Stauf; Janet E Cowan; Samuel L Washington; Annika Herlemann; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-07
Authors: Justin R Gregg; Maximilian Lang; Lucy L Wang; Matthew J Resnick; Sandeep K Jain; Jeremy L Warner; Daniel A Barocas Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2017-06-08
Authors: Stephanie R Reading; Kimberly R Porter; Jeffrey M Slezak; Teresa N Harrison; Joy S Gelfond; Gary W Chien; Steven J Jacobsen Journal: Sex Med Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 2.491
Authors: Arika E Wieneke; Erin J A Bowles; David Cronkite; Karen J Wernli; Hongyuan Gao; David Carrell; Diana S M Buist Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2015-06-23