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
. 2012 Jan-Feb;32(1):188-97.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X11400418. Epub 2011 Mar 10.

Natural language processing improves identification of colorectal cancer testing in the electronic medical record

Affiliations

Natural language processing improves identification of colorectal cancer testing in the electronic medical record

Joshua C Denny et al. Med Decis Making. 2012 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Background: Difficulty identifying patients in need of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening contributes to low screening rates.

Objective: To use Electronic Health Record (EHR) data to identify patients with prior CRC testing.

Design: A clinical natural language processing (NLP) system was modified to identify 4 CRC tests (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, fecal occult blood testing, and double contrast barium enema) within electronic clinical documentation. Text phrases in clinical notes referencing CRC tests were interpreted by the system to determine whether testing was planned or completed and to estimate the date of completed tests.

Setting: Large academic medical center.

Patients: 200 patients ≥ 50 years old who had completed ≥ 2 non-acute primary care visits within a 1-year period.

Measures: Recall and precision of the NLP system, billing records, and human chart review were compared to a reference standard of human review of all available information sources.

Results: For identification of all CRC tests, recall and precision were as follows: NLP system (recall 93%, precision 94%), chart review (74%, 98%), and billing records review (44%, 83%). Recall and precision for identification of patients in need of screening were: NLP system (recall 95%, precision 88%), chart review (99%, 82%), and billing records (99%, 67%).

Limitations: Small sample size and requirement for a robust EHR.

Conclusions: Applying NLP to EHR records detected more CRC tests than either manual chart review or billing records review alone. NLP had better precision but marginally lower recall to identify patients who were due for CRC screening than billing record review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

None of the authors have dual commitments or conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.
Detection of CRC Testing and Discussions by Natural Language Processing * According to 2002 United States Preventive Task Force Guidelines for average risk individuals † Tests not mutually exclusive

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2009. 2009. Atlanta, GA, American Cancer Society.
    1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 329:1977–1981. - PubMed
    1. U.S.Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:129–131. - PubMed
    1. Use of colorectal cancer tests--United States, 2002, 2004, and 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008; 57:253–258. - PubMed
    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; 97:1528–1540. - PubMed

Publication types