mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Understanding Clinical Trial Reports: Extracting Medical Entities and Their Relations

arXiv 2010.03550 ↗First posted 7 Oct 2020cs.CLcited by 14

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The best evidence concerning comparative treatment effectiveness comes from clinical trials, the results of which are reported in unstructured articles. Medical experts must manually extract information from articles to inform decision-making, which is time-consuming and expensive. Here we consider the end-to-end task of both (a) extracting treatments and outcomes from full-text articles describing clinical trials (entity identification) and, (b) inferring the reported results for the former with respect to the latter (relation extraction). We introduce new data for this task, and evaluate models that have recently achieved state-of-the-art results on similar tasks in Natural Language Processing. We then propose a new method motivated by how trial results are typically presented that outperforms these purely data-driven baselines. Finally, we run a fielded evaluation of the model with a non-profit seeking to identify existing drugs that might be re-purposed for cancer, showing the potential utility of end-to-end evidence extraction systems.

Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 5; 2022: 3; 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 1.

14 papers.

Sort:

By area: