Development of a keyword library for capturing PRO-CTCAE-focused "symptom talk" in oncology conversations.

IF 2.5 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Brigitte N Durieux, Samuel R Zverev, Elise C Tarbi, Anne Kwok, Kate Sciacca, Kathryn I Pollak, James A Tulsky, Charlotta Lindvall
{"title":"Development of a keyword library for capturing PRO-CTCAE-focused \"symptom talk\" in oncology conversations.","authors":"Brigitte N Durieux,&nbsp;Samuel R Zverev,&nbsp;Elise C Tarbi,&nbsp;Anne Kwok,&nbsp;Kate Sciacca,&nbsp;Kathryn I Pollak,&nbsp;James A Tulsky,&nbsp;Charlotta Lindvall","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As computational methods for detecting symptoms can help us better attend to patient suffering, the objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate the performance of a natural language processing keyword library for detecting symptom talk, and to describe symptom communication within our dataset to generate insights for future model building.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a secondary analysis of 121 transcribed outpatient oncology conversations from the Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters trial. Through an iterative process of identifying symptom expressions via inductive and deductive techniques, we generated a library of keywords relevant to the Patient-Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) framework from 90 conversations, and tested the library on 31 additional transcripts. To contextualize symptom expressions and the nature of misclassifications, we qualitatively analyzed 450 mislabeled and properly labeled symptom-positive turns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final library, comprising 1320 terms, identified symptom talk among conversation turns with an F1 of 0.82 against a PRO-CTCAE-focused gold standard, and an F1 of 0.61 against a broad gold standard. Qualitative observations suggest that physical symptoms are more easily detected than psychological symptoms (eg, anxiety), and ambiguity persists throughout symptom communication.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This rudimentary keyword library captures most PRO-CTCAE-focused symptom talk, but the ambiguity of symptom speech limits the utility of rule-based methods alone, and limits to generalizability must be considered.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings highlight opportunities for more advanced computational models to detect symptom expressions from transcribed clinical conversations. Future improvements in speech-to-text could enable real-time detection at scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"6 1","pages":"ooad009"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9912707/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: As computational methods for detecting symptoms can help us better attend to patient suffering, the objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate the performance of a natural language processing keyword library for detecting symptom talk, and to describe symptom communication within our dataset to generate insights for future model building.

Materials and methods: This was a secondary analysis of 121 transcribed outpatient oncology conversations from the Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters trial. Through an iterative process of identifying symptom expressions via inductive and deductive techniques, we generated a library of keywords relevant to the Patient-Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) framework from 90 conversations, and tested the library on 31 additional transcripts. To contextualize symptom expressions and the nature of misclassifications, we qualitatively analyzed 450 mislabeled and properly labeled symptom-positive turns.

Results: The final library, comprising 1320 terms, identified symptom talk among conversation turns with an F1 of 0.82 against a PRO-CTCAE-focused gold standard, and an F1 of 0.61 against a broad gold standard. Qualitative observations suggest that physical symptoms are more easily detected than psychological symptoms (eg, anxiety), and ambiguity persists throughout symptom communication.

Discussion: This rudimentary keyword library captures most PRO-CTCAE-focused symptom talk, but the ambiguity of symptom speech limits the utility of rule-based methods alone, and limits to generalizability must be considered.

Conclusion: Our findings highlight opportunities for more advanced computational models to detect symptom expressions from transcribed clinical conversations. Future improvements in speech-to-text could enable real-time detection at scale.

Abstract Image

开发一个关键字库,用于捕获肿瘤学对话中以pro - ctcae为重点的“症状对话”。
由于检测症状的计算方法可以帮助我们更好地照顾患者的痛苦,本研究的目标是开发和评估用于检测症状谈话的自然语言处理关键字库的性能,并在我们的数据集中描述症状交流,为未来的模型构建提供见解。材料和方法:这是对肿瘤医生与患者接触交流试验中121个门诊肿瘤对话的二次分析。通过通过归纳和演绎技术识别症状表达的迭代过程,我们从90个对话中生成了与不良事件通用术语标准(PRO-CTCAE)框架的患者报告结果版本相关的关键词库,并在31个额外的转录本上对该库进行了测试。为了将症状表现和错误分类的性质联系起来,我们定性地分析了450个错误标记和正确标记的症状阳性转变。结果:最终的库,包括1320个术语,在会话回合中识别出症状谈话,与pro - ctcae关注的金标准相比F1为0.82,与广泛的金标准相比F1为0.61。定性观察表明,身体症状比心理症状(如焦虑)更容易被发现,在整个症状交流过程中,模糊性持续存在。讨论:这个基本的关键字库捕获了大多数以pro - ctcae为重点的症状谈话,但是症状谈话的模糊性限制了基于规则的方法的实用性,并且必须考虑到泛化性的限制。结论:我们的研究结果强调了从转录的临床对话中检测症状表达的更先进的计算模型的机会。未来语音到文本的改进可以实现大规模的实时检测。
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
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信