2011
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-18050-7_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Linguistic and Temporal Processing for Discovering Hospital Acquired Infection from Patient Records

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This results in a telegraphic style, with omissions, abbreviations and misspellings, as reported for several languages including Swedish, Finnish, English, French, Hungarian and German (Laippala et al, 2009;Friedman et al, 2002;Hagège et al, 2011;Surján and Héja, 2003;Bretschneider et al, 2013). The omitted words are often subjects, verbs, prepositions and articles (Friedman et al, 2002;Bretschneider et al, 2013).…”
Section: Lexical Challenges To Readability Of Ehrssupporting
confidence: 61%
“…This results in a telegraphic style, with omissions, abbreviations and misspellings, as reported for several languages including Swedish, Finnish, English, French, Hungarian and German (Laippala et al, 2009;Friedman et al, 2002;Hagège et al, 2011;Surján and Héja, 2003;Bretschneider et al, 2013). The omitted words are often subjects, verbs, prepositions and articles (Friedman et al, 2002;Bretschneider et al, 2013).…”
Section: Lexical Challenges To Readability Of Ehrssupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Characteristics of clinical text are surprisingly similar in different even unrelated languages (Friedman et al 2002, Surján & Héja 2003, Laippala et al 2009, Hagège et al 2011, Bretschneider, Zillner & Hammon 2013, Temnikova et al 2013, Smith et al 2014). Several of these characteristics reflect the constant time pressure in healthcare, such as telegraphic text omitting words and frequent use of ad hoc abbreviations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, the limitations of the current version of the tool represent areas for improvement in the coming years. For example, because the tool is not based on a semantic analysis technique, it is not possible to identify negations [11]. This leads to a significant number of false positives, as shown by the relatively low PPV (48.7%) (See "Results", above).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%