Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 29–36 | Cite as

Quantitative evaluation of expression difference in report assignments between nursing and radiologic technology departments

  • Naoki Nishimoto
  • Yuki Yokooka
  • Ayako Yagahara
  • Masahito Uesugi
  • Katsuhiko Ogasawara
Article
  • 267 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Education Medical informatics TF/IDF Space vector model Natural language processing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Takumi Tanikawa for discussing the terminology used in the natural language processing.

References

  1. 1.
    Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(10):742–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson K, Chark D, Chen Q, Broussard A, Rosenbloom ST. Performing without a net: transitioning away from a health information technology-rich training environment. Acad Med. 2008;83(12):1179–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hussey T. Nursing ethics and project 2000. J Adv Nurs. 1990;15(12):1377–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allmark P. The ethical enterprise of nursing. J Adv Nurs. 1992;17(1):16–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stevenson M, Guo Y, Gaizauskas R, Martinez D. Disambiguation of biomedical text using diverse sources of information. BMC Bioinform. 2008;9(Suppl 11):S7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shatkay H, Feldman R. Mining the biomedical literature in the genomic era: an overview. J Comput Biol. 2003;10(6):821–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aronson AR, Rindflesch TC. Query expansion using the UMLS Metathesaurus. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997;485–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aronson AR. Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the MetaMap program. Proc AMIA Symp. 2001;17–21.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Settles B. ABNER: an open source tool for automatically tagging genes, proteins and other entity names in text. Bioinformatics. 2005;21(14):3191–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman C, Shagina L, Lussier Y, Hripcsak G. Automated encoding of clinical documents based on natural language processing. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(5):392–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedman C. A broad-coverage natural language processing system. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000;270–4.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman C. Towards a comprehensive medical language processing system: methods and issues. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997;595–9.Google Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 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. 16.
    Kurohashi S, Kawahara D. Kyoto University natural language processing tools. IPSJ SIG Notes. 2000;2000(53):91.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zeng QT, Tse T. Exploring and developing consumer health vocabularies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(1):24–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salton G, Wong A, Yang CS. A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM. 1975;18(11):613–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zeng QT, Tse T, Divita G, Keselman A, Crowell J, Browne AC, et al. Term identification methods for consumer health vocabulary development. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(1):e4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Zeng-Treitler Q, Kim H, Goryachev S, Keselman A, Slaughter L, Smith CA. Text characteristics of clinical reports and their implications for the readability of personal health records. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 2):1117–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cameron ME, Schaffer M, Park HA. Nursing students’ experience of ethical problems and use of ethical decision-making models. Nurs Ethics. 2001;8(5):432–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park HA, Cameron ME, Han SS, Ahn SH, Oh HS, Kim KU. Korean nursing students’ ethical problems and ethical decision making. Nurs Ethics. 2003;10(6):638–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ellenchild Pinch WJ, Graves JK. Using web-based discussion as a teaching strategy: bioethics as an exemplar. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(3):704–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Han SS, Ahn SH. An analysis and evaluation of student nurses’ participation in ethical decision making. Nurs Ethics. 2000;7(2):113–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lindseth G. Practicing invasive procedures on students and patients: an ethical dilemma in nursing education. Nurs Forum. 1994;29(1):18–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cameron ME, Schaffer MA. Tell me the right answer: a model for teaching nursing ethics. J Nurs Educ. 1992;31(8):377–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoki Nishimoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yuki Yokooka
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ayako Yagahara
    • 4
  • Masahito Uesugi
    • 5
  • Katsuhiko Ogasawara
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Healthcare Systems Research, Graduate School of MedicineHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Trial Management, Hokkaido Organization for Translational Research, Graduate School of MedicineHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyClark HospitalSapporoJapan
  4. 4.Graduate School of Health SciencesHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  5. 5.Department of Medical Management and InformaticsHokkaido Information UniversityEbetsuJapan
  6. 6.Faculty of Health SciencesHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations