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
. 2010 Jul-Aug;17(4):383-8.
doi: 10.1136/jamia.2010.004804.

Extracting timing and status descriptors for colonoscopy testing from electronic medical records

Affiliations

Extracting timing and status descriptors for colonoscopy testing from electronic medical records

Joshua C Denny et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low despite confirmed benefits. The authors investigated the use of natural language processing (NLP) to identify previous colonoscopy screening in electronic records from a random sample of 200 patients at least 50 years old. The authors developed algorithms to recognize temporal expressions and 'status indicators', such as 'patient refused', or 'test scheduled'. The new methods were added to the existing KnowledgeMap concept identifier system, and the resulting system was used to parse electronic medical records (EMR) to detect completed colonoscopies. Using as the 'gold standard' expert physicians' manual review of EMR notes, the system identified timing references with a recall of 0.91 and precision of 0.95, colonoscopy status indicators with a recall of 0.82 and precision of 0.95, and references to actually completed colonoscopies with recall of 0.93 and precision of 0.95. The system was superior to using colonoscopy billing codes alone. Health services researchers and clinicians may find NLP a useful adjunct to traditional methods to detect CRC screening status. Further investigations must validate extension of NLP approaches for other types of CRC screening applications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example assignment of date and status events. The figure assumes a note date in 2007 for the relative date calculation. Only the ‘colonoscopy’ event would have been evaluated in this study.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, et al. Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 2003;97:1528–40 - PubMed
    1. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124:544–60 - PubMed
    1. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Trends in screening for colorectal cancer—United States, 1997 and 1999. JAMA 2001;285:1570–1 - PubMed
    1. Freeman JL, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, et al. Measuring breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening with medicare claims data. Med Care 2002;40(8 Suppl):IV-36–42 - PubMed
    1. Board on Health Care Services and Institute of Medicine Key capabilities of an electronic health record system. Washington DC, USA: Institute of Medicine, 2003

Publication types