Formulating Queries for Assessing Clinical Trial Eligibility

  • Deryle Lonsdale
  • Clint Tustison
  • Craig Parker
  • David W. Embley
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3999)

Abstract

This paper introduces a system that processes clinical trials using a combination of natural language processing and database techniques. We process web-based clinical trial recruitment pages to extract semantic information reflecting eligibility criteria for potential participants. From this information we then formulate a query that can match criteria against medical data in patient records. The resulting system reflects a tight coupling of web-based information extraction, natural language processing, medical informatic approaches to clinical knowledge representation, and large-scale database technologies. We present an evaluation of the system and future directions for further system development.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    International Standard ISO/IEC 8824-1. Information technology—Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation. Technical report, International Telecommunications Union, ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hripcsak, G., Clayton, P.D., Pryor, T.A., Haug, P., Wigertz, O.B., Lei, J.v.d.: The Arden Syntax for Medical Logic Modules. In: Miller, R.A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pp. 200–204. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huff, S.M., Rocha, R.A., Solbrig, H.R., Barnes, M.W., Schrank, S.P., Smith, M.: Linking a medical vocabulary to a clinical data model using Abstract Syntax Notation 1. Methods of Information in Medicine 37(4-5), 440–452 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindberg, C.: The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) of the National Library of Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Reccord Association 61(5), 40–42 (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCray, A.T.: Better access to information about clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 133(8), 609–614 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newell, A.: Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parker, C.G., Rocha, R.A., Campbell, J.R., Tu, S.W., Huff, S.M.: Detailed clinical models for sharable, executable guidelines. Medinfo 11(Pt 1), 145–148 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parker C.: Generating medical logic modules for clinical trial eligibility. Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rocha, R.A., Huff, S.M., Haug, P.J., Warner, H.R.: Designing a controlled medical vocabulary server: the VOSER project. Computers and Biomedical Research 27(6), 472–507 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sleator D., Temperley D.: Parsing English with a link grammar. Technical Report CMU-CS-91-196, Carnegie Mellon University (October 1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spackman, K.A., Campbell, K.E.: Compositional concept representation using SNOMED: Towards further convergence of clinical terminologies. In: Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, pp. 740–744 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Szolovits, P.: Adding a medical lexicon to an English parser. In: Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, pp. 639–643 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deryle Lonsdale
    • 1
  • Clint Tustison
    • 1
  • Craig Parker
    • 1
  • David W. Embley
    • 1
  1. 1.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations