IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0112774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negation’s Not Solved: Generalizability Versus Optimizability in Clinical Natural Language Processing

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Wu
  • Timothy Miller
  • James Masanz
  • Matt Coarr
  • Scott Halgrim
  • David Carrell
  • Cheryl Clark

Abstract

A review of published work in clinical natural language processing (NLP) may suggest that the negation detection task has been “solved.” This work proposes that an optimizable solution does not equal a generalizable solution. We introduce a new machine learning-based Polarity Module for detecting negation in clinical text, and extensively compare its performance across domains. Using four manually annotated corpora of clinical text, we show that negation detection performance suffers when there is no in-domain development (for manual methods) or training data (for machine learning-based methods). Various factors (e.g., annotation guidelines, named entity characteristics, the amount of data, and lexical and syntactic context) play a role in making generalizability difficult, but none completely explains the phenomenon. Furthermore, generalizability remains challenging because it is unclear whether to use a single source for accurate data, combine all sources into a single model, or apply domain adaptation methods. The most reliable means to improve negation detection is to manually annotate in-domain training data (or, perhaps, manually modify rules); this is a strategy for optimizing performance, rather than generalizing it. These results suggest a direction for future work in domain-adaptive and task-adaptive methods for clinical NLP.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Wu & Timothy Miller & James Masanz & Matt Coarr & Scott Halgrim & David Carrell & Cheryl Clark, 2014. "Negation’s Not Solved: Generalizability Versus Optimizability in Clinical Natural Language Processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112774
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112774
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112774&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0112774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucie M. Gattepaille & Sara Hedfors Vidlin & Tomas Bergvall & Carrie E. Pierce & Johan Ellenius, 2020. "Prospective Evaluation of Adverse Event Recognition Systems in Twitter: Results from the Web-RADR Project," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(8), pages 797-808, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0112774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.