Curation of a Cardiology Interface Terminology for Highlighting Electronic Health Records using Machine Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Electronic health record (EHR) notes are dense medical documents containing large amounts of information, often filled with complex medical jargon. Highlighting all details in EHRs helps reduce the likelihood of missing crucial information by drawing attention to key content. This study proposes the design of a Cardiology Interface Terminology (CIT) to accurately highlight all details in EHR notes of cardiology patients. We introduce an innovative Machine Learning (ML) technique for the design of CIT. The ML technique requires training data. Manual preparation of such training data is time-consuming and expensive. The process of the CIT design includes three phases. In the first two phases, we innovatively derive a training data CIT to be used by the third phase, ML technique. We start by designing an initial CIT, composed of several components: the cardiology-related sub-hierarchies of SNOMED, other SNOMED concepts mined from EHRs of build set, and necessary components of terms e.g., medical abbreviations and medications. Utilizing an iterative process, fine-grained phrases containing initial CIT concepts are extracted from build set as CIT concept candidates. The candidate concepts are semi-automatically reviewed before being added to CIT, yielding the training data CIT, TCIT. In the third phase, a ML model is trained with TCIT to identify candidates fitting to be concepts in the CIT. This model is used to extract further concepts from build set, yielding the final CIT. The final CIT is then used to highlight the test set and evaluate the extent to which it captures details in an unseen EHR dataset. For this purpose, four evaluation metrics, coverage, breadth, completeness, and conciseness are used. The highlighted test set has a coverage of 74.21%, with a breadth of 1.68. For 20 random notes in test set, the average completeness is 98.2% and average conciseness is 84.2%.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jun 2026.
Builds on
12 of 54 references.
References · 12
- 2023A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPTcited by 619
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Privacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Uglycited by 387
- 2019Transfer Learning in Biomedical Natural Language Processing: An Evaluation of BERT and ELMo on Ten Benchmarking Datasetscited by 299
- 2024Security and Privacy Challenges of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 186
- 2022ChatGPT Makes Medicine Easy to Swallow: An Exploratory Case Study on Simplified Radiology Reportscited by 101
- 2019Grid Search, Random Search, Genetic Algorithm: A Big Comparison for NAScited by 83
- 2024Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigationcited by 77
- 2024The Ethics of ChatGPT in Medicine and Healthcare: A Systematic Review on Large Language Models (LLMs)cited by 45
- 2024A Comprehensive Survey of Bias in LLMs: Current Landscape and Future Directionscited by 27
- 2024Preserving Privacy in Large Language Models: A Survey on Current Threats and Solutionscited by 15
- 2021Summarization, Simplification, and Generation: The Case of Patentscited by 6
- 2024Misinforming LLMs: vulnerabilities, challenges and opportunitiescited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.