Quantitative evaluation of expression difference in report assignments between nursing and radiologic technology departments
- 267 Downloads
Our purpose in this study was to investigate the expression differences in report assignments between students in nursing and radiologic technology departments. We have known that faculties could identify differences, such as word usage, through grading their students’ assignments. However, there are no reports in the literature dealing with expression differences in vocabulary usage in medical informatics education based on statistical techniques or other quantitative measures. The report assignment asked for students’ opinions in the event that they found a rare case of a disease in a hospital after they graduated from professional school. We processed student report data automatically, and we applied the space vector model and TF/IDF (term frequency/inverse document frequency) scoring to 129 report assignments. The similarity-score distributions among the assignments for these two departments were close to normal. We focused on the sets of terms that occurred exclusively in either department. For terms such as “radiation therapy” or “communication skills” that occurred in the radiologic technology department, the TF/IDF score was 8.01. The same score was obtained for terms such as “privacy guidelines” or “consent of patients” that occurred in the nursing department. These results will help faculties to provide a better education based on identified expression differences from students’ background knowledge.
KeywordsEducation Medical informatics TF/IDF Space vector model Natural language processing
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Takumi Tanikawa for discussing the terminology used in the natural language processing.
- 7.Aronson AR, Rindflesch TC. Query expansion using the UMLS Metathesaurus. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997;485–9.Google Scholar
- 8.Aronson AR. Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the MetaMap program. Proc AMIA Symp. 2001;17–21.Google Scholar
- 11.Friedman C. A broad-coverage natural language processing system. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000;270–4.Google Scholar
- 12.Friedman C. Towards a comprehensive medical language processing system: methods and issues. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997;595–9.Google Scholar
- 13.Carrell D, Miglioretti D, Smith-Bindman R. Coding free text radiology reports using the Cancer Text Information Extraction System (caTIES). AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007;889.Google Scholar
- 14.Gysbers M, Reichley R, Kilbridge PM, Noirot L, Nagarajan R, Dunagan WC, et al. Natural language processing to identify adverse drug events. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008;961.Google Scholar
- 15.Brants T. TnT: a statistical part-of-speech tagger. In: Proceedings of the sixth conference on applied natural language processing. Seattle, WA: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2000.Google Scholar
- 16.Kurohashi S, Kawahara D. Kyoto University natural language processing tools. IPSJ SIG Notes. 2000;2000(53):91.Google Scholar
- 20.Kim H, Goryachev S, Rosemblat G, Browne A, Keselman A, Zeng-Treitler Q. Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007;418–22.Google Scholar