| Literature DB >> 30591015 |
Shanta Chowdhury1, Xishuang Dong1, Lijun Qian1, Xiangfang Li2, Yi Guan3, Jinfeng Yang4, Qiubin Yu5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic Medical Record (EMR) comprises patients' medical information gathered by medical stuff for providing better health care. Named Entity Recognition (NER) is a sub-field of information extraction aimed at identifying specific entity terms such as disease, test, symptom, genes etc. NER can be a relief for healthcare providers and medical specialists to extract useful information automatically and avoid unnecessary and unrelated information in EMR. However, limited resources of available EMR pose a great challenge for mining entity terms. Therefore, a multitask bi-directional RNN model is proposed here as a potential solution of data augmentation to enhance NER performance with limited data.Entities:
Keywords: Electronic medical records; Multitask learning; Named entity recognition; Parts-of-speech tagging; Recurrent neural network; Word embedding
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30591015 PMCID: PMC6309059 DOI: 10.1186/s12859-018-2467-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Fig. 1Framework of the proposed multitask bi-directional RNN model for NER
Fig. 2Vector Representation as concatenation of word embeddings and character embeddings. Vector representation of each word is presented as concatenation of word embeddings and character embeddings. The flow of word embedding is highlighted by red shaded box and character embedding is highlighted by white shaded box
Fig. 3Contextual word representation from vector representation. To extract relevant context information from sentence, bi-directional RNN with LSTM cell is used to extract information from a vector associated with word embedding (red shaded box) and character embedding (white shaded box) to form contextual word representation (green shaded box)
The proposed network architecture
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| Input | Sentences in EMR |
| Word Embedding | Mikolov model |
| Character Embedding Layer | 150 LSTM cells for each hidden layer, |
| one forward hidden layer and one backward hidden layer, | |
| Dropout = 0.5 | |
| Parts-of-speech tag (POS) layer | 150 LSTM cells for each hidden layer, |
| one forward hidden layer and one backward hidden layer, | |
| Dropout = 0.5 | |
| Named Entity recognition (NER) Layer | 150 LSTM cells for each hidden layer, |
| one forward hidden layer and one backward hidden layer, | |
| Dropout = 0.5 | |
| Output | Softmax |
Fig. 4Tagging results on Chinese EMR [7]
Name of the entity types and their descriptions
| Entity Types | Description |
|---|---|
| Disease | Phrases related to disease concept |
| Symptom | Phrases of symptom concept |
| Disease group | Phrases of the cruelty of diseases |
| Treatment | Phrases of protocol and surgery name |
| Test | Phrases represent different tests name prescribed for patient |
BIO format of entity types
| Categories | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NER type | Disease | Symptom | Disease group | Treatment | Test | Other | 6 |
| BIO format | B_dis | B_com | B_dit | B_tre | B_tes | other | 11 |
| I_dis | I_com | I_dit | I_tre | I_tes | |||
Comparison results of MicroP, MicroR and MicroF measure on discharge summaries
| Model | MicroP | MicroR | MicroF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naive Bayes | 78.07 | 77.91 | 77.99 |
| Maximum Entropy | 88.81 | 88.81 | 88.81 |
| Support Vector Machine | 90.52 | 90.52 | 90.52 |
| Conditional Random Field [ | 93.15 | 93.15 | 93.15 |
| Convolutional Neural Network [ | 88.64 | 88.64 | 88.64 |
| Bi-RNN model | 90.90 | 90.90 | 90.90 |
| Transfer learning Bi-RNN model [ | 92.25 | 92.25 | 92.25 |
| Our proposed model | 93.31 | 93.31 | 93.31 |
Comparison results of MicroP, MicroR and MicroF measure on progress notes
| Model | MicroP | MicroR | MicroF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naive Bayes | 79.42 | 79.37 | 79.40 |
| Maximum Entropy | 91.45 | 91.45 | 91.45 |
| Support Vector Machine | 93.07 | 93.06 | 93.06 |
| Conditional Random Field [ | 94.93 | 94.02 | 94.02 |
| Convolutional Neural Network [ | 91.13 | 91.14 | 91.13 |
| Bi-RNN model | 93.58 | 93.58 | 93.58 |
| Transfer learning Bi-RNN model [ | 94.37 | 94.37 | 94.37 |
| Our proposed model | 96.65 | 96.65 | 96.65 |
Comparison results of NER on discharge summaries
| Bi-RNN model | Our proposed model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entity type | Precision | Recall | F-measure | Precision | Recall | F-measure |
| Disease | 82.82 | 78.02 | 80.34 | 84.11 | 84.70 | 84.40 |
| Symptom | 80.26 | 80.11 | 80.19 | 88.08 | 84.01 | 86.00 |
| Disease group | 37.50 | 100 | 54.54 | 43.75 | 82.35 | 57.14 |
| Treatment | 68.89 | 78.58 | 73.41 | 73.91 | 82.06 | 77.77 |
| Test | 82.99 | 86.43 | 84.68 | 89.23 | 87.99 | 88.61 |
| Macro average | 70.91 | 84.67 | 74.63 | 75.82 | 84.22 | 78.79 |
Comparison results of NER on progress notes
| Bi-RNN model | Our proposed model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entity type | Precision | Recall | F-measure | Precision | Recall | F-measure |
| Disease | 90.11 | 88.93 | 89.52 | 94.06 | 95.07 | 94.56 |
| Symptom | 87.67 | 88.335 | 88.00 | 94.50 | 90.79 | 92.61 |
| Disease group | 27.27 | 75.00 | 40.00 | 77.27 | 80.95 | 79.06 |
| Treatment | 71.06 | 77.80 | 74.28 | 88.15 | 87.19 | 87.67 |
| Test | 83.64 | 88.41 | 85.96 | 92.53 | 93.36 | 92.94 |
| Macro average | 71.95 | 83.69 | 75.55 | 89.31 | 89.47 | 89.37 |
Comparison results (%accuracy) on discharge summaries
| Model | Entity type | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease | Symptom | Disease group | Treatment | Test | Overall accuracy | |
| Naive Bayes (NB) | 44.82 | 51.72 | N/A | 59.00 | 65.96 | 58.91 |
| Maximum Entropy (ME) | 48.32 | 56.34 | 34.19 | 58.80 | 76.10 | 65.68 |
| Support Vector Machine (SVM) | 57.18 | 62.52 | 37.22 | 60.48 | 80.17 | 70.46 |
| Conditional Random Field (CRF) [ | 77.33 | 77.83 | 48.39 | 77.47 | 90.05 | 83.94 |
| Convolutional Neural Network(CNN) [ | 52.80 | 65.76 | 40.00 | 53.14 | 79.28 | 68.60 |
| Bi-RNN model | 73.83 | 79.35 | 28.00 | 67.99 | 82.63 | 77.85 |
| Transfer learning Bi-RNN model [ | 74.30 | 82.60 | 44.00 | 68.20 | 86.79 | 80.75 |
| Our proposed model | 76.86 | 87.22 | 36.00 | 71.33 | 89.20 | 83.51 |
Comparison results (%accuracy) on progress notes
| Model | Entity type | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease | Symptom | Disease group | Treatment | Test | Overall accuracy | |
| Naive Bayes (NB) | 69.50 | 70.09 | N/A | 41.59 | 71.85 | 67.49 |
| Maximum Entropy (ME) | 71.49 | 72.37 | 41.15 | 52.93 | 77.58 | 72.44 |
| Support Vector Machine (SVM) | 77.77 | 76.92 | 21.12 | 56.36 | 81.49 | 76.45 |
| Conditional Random Field (CRF) [ | 87.42 | 87.09 | 36.06 | 75.60 | 90.31 | 87.22 |
| Convolutional Neural Network(CNN) [ | 76.19 | 76.65 | 12.50 | 51.83 | 76.65 | 73.40 |
| Bi-RNN model | 87.48 | 87.01 | 25.00 | 63.99 | 83.75 | 82.72 |
| Transfer learning Bi-RNN model [ | 88.70 | 88.49 | 31.25 | 72.93 | 86.12 | 85.43 |
| Our proposed model | 92.24 | 94.19 | 75.00 | 86.46 | 92.61 | 92.13 |
Comparison results for character and word level feature
| Embedding approaches | Character level | Word level | Character level+Word level |
|---|---|---|---|
| MicroF | 77.25 | 93.22 | 93.31 |
| MacroF | 47.28 | 81.23 | 78.79 |
| Accuracy | 35.30 | 83.12 | 83.51 |