TY - JOUR
T1 - A Data-Driven Iterative Approach for Semi-automatically Assessing the Correctness of Medication Value Sets
T2 - A Proof of Concept Based on Opioids
AU - Li, Linyi
AU - Grando, Adela
AU - Sarker, Abeed
N1 - Funding Information:
A.G.’s efforts were funded by the National Institute of Mental Health through the “My Data Choices, evaluation of effective consent strategies for patients with behavioral health conditions” (R01 MH108992) grant. A.S.’s efforts
Funding Information:
were funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse through the “Mining Social Media Big Data for Toxicovigi-lance: Automating the Monitoring of Prescription Medication Abuse via Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning Methods” (R01 DA046619) grant.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Academy of Audiology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/12/1
Y1 - 2021/12/1
N2 - Background Value sets are lists of terms (e.g., opioid medication names) and their corresponding codes from standard clinical vocabularies (e.g., RxNorm) created with the intent of supporting health information exchange and research. Value sets are manually-created and often exhibit errors. Objectives The aim of the study is to develop a semi-automatic, data-centric natural language processing (NLP) method to assess medication-related value set correctness and evaluate it on a set of opioid medication value sets. Methods We developed an NLP algorithm that utilizes value sets containing mostly true positives and true negatives to learn lexical patterns associated with the true positives, and then employs these patterns to identify potential errors in unseen value sets. We evaluated the algorithm on a set of opioid medication value sets, using the recall, precision and F 1-score metrics. We applied the trained model to assess the correctness of unseen opioid value sets based on recall. To replicate the application of the algorithm in real-world settings, a domain expert manually conducted error analysis to identify potential system and value set errors. Results Thirty-eight value sets were retrieved from the Value Set Authority Center, and six (two opioid, four non-opioid) were used to develop and evaluate the system. Average precision, recall, and F 1-score were 0.932, 0.904, and 0.909, respectively on uncorrected value sets; and 0.958, 0.953, and 0.953, respectively after manual correction of the same value sets. On 20 unseen opioid value sets, the algorithm obtained average recall of 0.89. Error analyses revealed that the main sources of system misclassifications were differences in how opioids were coded in the value sets-while the training value sets had generic names mostly, some of the unseen value sets had new trade names and ingredients. Conclusion The proposed approach is data-centric, reusable, customizable, and not resource intensive. It may help domain experts to easily validate value sets.
AB - Background Value sets are lists of terms (e.g., opioid medication names) and their corresponding codes from standard clinical vocabularies (e.g., RxNorm) created with the intent of supporting health information exchange and research. Value sets are manually-created and often exhibit errors. Objectives The aim of the study is to develop a semi-automatic, data-centric natural language processing (NLP) method to assess medication-related value set correctness and evaluate it on a set of opioid medication value sets. Methods We developed an NLP algorithm that utilizes value sets containing mostly true positives and true negatives to learn lexical patterns associated with the true positives, and then employs these patterns to identify potential errors in unseen value sets. We evaluated the algorithm on a set of opioid medication value sets, using the recall, precision and F 1-score metrics. We applied the trained model to assess the correctness of unseen opioid value sets based on recall. To replicate the application of the algorithm in real-world settings, a domain expert manually conducted error analysis to identify potential system and value set errors. Results Thirty-eight value sets were retrieved from the Value Set Authority Center, and six (two opioid, four non-opioid) were used to develop and evaluate the system. Average precision, recall, and F 1-score were 0.932, 0.904, and 0.909, respectively on uncorrected value sets; and 0.958, 0.953, and 0.953, respectively after manual correction of the same value sets. On 20 unseen opioid value sets, the algorithm obtained average recall of 0.89. Error analyses revealed that the main sources of system misclassifications were differences in how opioids were coded in the value sets-while the training value sets had generic names mostly, some of the unseen value sets had new trade names and ingredients. Conclusion The proposed approach is data-centric, reusable, customizable, and not resource intensive. It may help domain experts to easily validate value sets.
KW - medication value sets
KW - natural language processing
KW - opioids
KW - prescription drugs
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122982255&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85122982255&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1055/s-0041-1740358
DO - 10.1055/s-0041-1740358
M3 - Article
C2 - 34965602
AN - SCOPUS:85122982255
SN - 0026-1270
VL - 60
SP - E111-E119
JO - Methods of Information in Medicine
JF - Methods of Information in Medicine
ER -