help button home button JAMIA Hate scrolling?
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

First published December 20, 2007 as JAMIA PrePrint; doi:10.1197/jamia.M2585
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
M2585v1
15/2/198    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pakhomov, S. V.S.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, S. A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pakhomov, S. V.S.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, S. A.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:198-202. DOI 10.1197/jamia.M2585.
© 2008 American Medical Informatics Association


Technical Brief

Automatic Classification of Foot Examination Findings Using Clinical Notes and Machine Learning

Serguei V.S. Pakhomov, PhDa,1,*, Penny L. Hansonb, Susan S. Bjornsenb and Steven A. Smith, MDb,c

a Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN
b Department of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
c Department of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

* Correspondence: Serguei V.S. Pakhomov, PhD, 7-125F Weaver-Densford Hall, 308 Harvard Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455 (Email: pakh0002{at}umn.edu).

Received for publication: 08/07/07; accepted for publication: 12/10/07.

We examine the feasibility of a machine learning approach to identification of foot examination (FE) findings from the unstructured text of clinical reports. A Support Vector Machine (SVM) based system was constructed to process the text of physical examination sections of in- and out-patient clinical notes to identify if the findings of structural, neurological, and vascular components of a FE revealed normal or abnormal findings or were not assessed. The system was tested on 145 randomly selected patients for each FE component using 10-fold cross validation. The accuracy was 80%, 87% and 88% for structural, neurological, and vascular component classifiers, respectively. Our results indicate that using machine learning to identify FE findings from clinical reports is a viable alternative to manual review and warrants further investigation. This application may improve quality and safety by providing inexpensive and scalable methodology for quality and risk factor assessments at the point of care.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Medical Informatics Association.