The consensus-based CINEX guideline for reporting clinical information extraction studies.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Daniel Reichenpfader, Jamil Zaghir, Elsa Cécilia-Joseph, Boris Delange, Anastassia Shaitarova, Emmanuelle Sylvestre, Fabio Dennstädt, Boya Zhang, Douglas Teodoro, Stéphane Meystre, Henning Müller, Kerstin Denecke
{"title":"The consensus-based CINEX guideline for reporting clinical information extraction studies.","authors":"Daniel Reichenpfader, Jamil Zaghir, Elsa Cécilia-Joseph, Boris Delange, Anastassia Shaitarova, Emmanuelle Sylvestre, Fabio Dennstädt, Boya Zhang, Douglas Teodoro, Stéphane Meystre, Henning Müller, Kerstin Denecke","doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocag136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Information extraction (IE) from clinical texts has advanced rapidly with recent advances in natural language processing, particularly the advent of large language models (LLMs). However, inconsistent and incomplete reporting of methodologies limits reproducibility, comparability, and clinical translation. We aimed to develop a consensus-based reporting guideline tailored to clinical IE studies.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We developed the Clinical Information Extraction Reporting Guideline (CINEX) through a multi-phase process. The initiative was prospectively registered on the EQUATOR Network as a reporting guideline under development, and a detailed Delphi study protocol was published in advance. A scoping review informed an initial set of items, which was refined through a 3-round electronic Delphi study with 20 international experts, followed by a final consensus meeting. Items were iteratively refined based on predefined inclusion criteria and expert feedback.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final CINEX guideline comprises 29 checklist items grouped into 5 domains: information model, architecture, data, annotation, and outcomes. The 3 eDelphi rounds included 20, 15, and 12 experts, respectively. Two items were added after round one. Consensus for inclusion was reached for a 21 and additional 7 items after rounds 2 and 3, respectively.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>CINEX provides a structured framework to improve transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability in clinical IE research. By standardizing reporting of key methodological components, such as data provenance, annotation processes, and evaluation strategies, it facilitates meaningful comparison across studies and supports safer clinical implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CINEX complements existing AI reporting standards by addressing domain-specific challenges in clinical IE.</p>","PeriodicalId":50016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","volume":" ","pages":"2040-2050"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13630295/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocag136","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Information extraction (IE) from clinical texts has advanced rapidly with recent advances in natural language processing, particularly the advent of large language models (LLMs). However, inconsistent and incomplete reporting of methodologies limits reproducibility, comparability, and clinical translation. We aimed to develop a consensus-based reporting guideline tailored to clinical IE studies.

Material and methods: We developed the Clinical Information Extraction Reporting Guideline (CINEX) through a multi-phase process. The initiative was prospectively registered on the EQUATOR Network as a reporting guideline under development, and a detailed Delphi study protocol was published in advance. A scoping review informed an initial set of items, which was refined through a 3-round electronic Delphi study with 20 international experts, followed by a final consensus meeting. Items were iteratively refined based on predefined inclusion criteria and expert feedback.

Results: The final CINEX guideline comprises 29 checklist items grouped into 5 domains: information model, architecture, data, annotation, and outcomes. The 3 eDelphi rounds included 20, 15, and 12 experts, respectively. Two items were added after round one. Consensus for inclusion was reached for a 21 and additional 7 items after rounds 2 and 3, respectively.

Discussion: CINEX provides a structured framework to improve transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability in clinical IE research. By standardizing reporting of key methodological components, such as data provenance, annotation processes, and evaluation strategies, it facilitates meaningful comparison across studies and supports safer clinical implementation.

Conclusion: CINEX complements existing AI reporting standards by addressing domain-specific challenges in clinical IE.

基于共识的CINEX临床信息提取研究报告指南。
目的:随着自然语言处理的最新进展,特别是大型语言模型(llm)的出现,临床文本的信息提取(IE)发展迅速。然而,不一致和不完整的方法报告限制了可重复性、可比性和临床翻译。我们的目标是针对临床IE研究制定一个基于共识的报告指南。材料和方法:我们通过一个多阶段的过程制定了临床信息提取报告指南(CINEX)。该倡议有望在赤道网络上登记,作为正在制定的报告准则,并提前公布了详细的德尔菲研究方案。范围审查为最初的一组项目提供了信息,这些项目通过与20名国际专家进行的3轮电子德尔菲研究进行了完善,随后举行了最后的共识会议。根据预定义的纳入标准和专家反馈,对项目进行迭代改进。结果:最终的CINEX指南包括29个清单项目,分为5个领域:信息模型、体系结构、数据、注释和结果。3轮eDelphi分别包括20名、15名和12名专家。第一轮之后又增加了两个项目。在第二轮和第三轮谈判后,各方就分别增加21项和7项达成共识。讨论:CINEX提供了一个结构化的框架,以提高临床IE研究的透明度、可重复性和可解释性。通过标准化关键方法学组成部分的报告,如数据来源、注释过程和评估策略,它促进了研究之间有意义的比较,并支持更安全的临床实施。结论:CINEX通过解决临床IE中特定领域的挑战,补充了现有的AI报告标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 医学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
7.80%
发文量
230
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMIA is AMIA''s premier peer-reviewed journal for biomedical and health informatics. Covering the full spectrum of activities in the field, JAMIA includes informatics articles in the areas of clinical care, clinical research, translational science, implementation science, imaging, education, consumer health, public health, and policy. JAMIA''s articles describe innovative informatics research and systems that help to advance biomedical science and to promote health. Case reports, perspectives and reviews also help readers stay connected with the most important informatics developments in implementation, policy and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书