Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36544046›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2022

A survey on clinical natural language processing in the United Kingdom from 2007 to 2022.

Honghan Wu, Minhong Wang, Jinge Wu, Farah Francis, Yun-Hsuan Chang, Alex Shavick, Hang Dong, Michael T C Poon, Natalie Fitzpatrick, Adam P Levine and 13 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Large language models accurately identify immunosuppression in intensive care unit patients.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Honghan WuInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK. honghan.wu@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0213-5668
Minhong WangInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Jinge WuInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Farah FrancisUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7979-6296
Yun-Hsuan ChangInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Alex ShavickResearch Department of Pathology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Hang DongUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Michael T C PoonUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Natalie FitzpatrickInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Adam P LevineResearch Department of Pathology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1333-9938
Karin T SlaterInstitute of Cancer and Genomics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alex HandyInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Andreas KarwathInstitute of Cancer and Genomics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Georgios V GkoutosInstitute of Cancer and Genomics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2061-091X
Claude ChelalaCentre for Tumour Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Anoop Dinesh ShahInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8907-5724
Robert StewartDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4435-6397
Nigel CollierTheoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Modern & Medieval Languages & Linguistics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Beatrice AlexEdinburgh Futures Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
William WhiteleyUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4816-8991
Cathie SudlowUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Angus RobertsDepartment of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4570-9801
Richard J B DobsonInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4224-9245

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/17/01Medical Research Council MC_PC_18029Medical Research Council MR/S003991/1Medical Research Council MR/S004149/1Medical Research Council MR/S004149/2Medical Research Council MR/V049879/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much of the knowledge and information needed for enabling high-quality clinical research is stored in free-text format. Natural language processing (NLP) has been used to extract information from these sources at scale for several decades. This paper aims to present a comprehensive review of clinical NLP for the past 15 years in the UK to identify the community, depict its evolution, analyse methodologies and applications, and identify the main barriers. We collect a dataset of clinical NLP projects (n = 94; £ = 41.97 m) funded by UK funders or the European Union's funding programmes. Additionally, we extract details on 9 funders, 137 organisations, 139 persons and 431 research papers. Networks are created from timestamped data interlinking all entities, and network analysis is subsequently applied to generate insights. 431 publications are identified as part of a literature review, of which 107 are eligible for final analysis. Results show, not surprisingly, clinical NLP in the UK has increased substantially in the last 15 years: the total budget in the period of 2019-2022 was 80 times that of 2007-2010. However, the effort is required to deepen areas such as disease (sub-)phenotyping and broaden application domains. There is also a need to improve links between academia and industry and enable deployments in real-world settings for the realisation of clinical NLP's great potential in care delivery. The major barriers include research and development access to hospital data, lack of capable computational resources in the right places, the scarcity of labelled data and barriers to sharing of pretrained models.

Identifiers

PMID36544046
PMCPMC9770568

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.