Home Aims & Objectives NaCTeM Services Text Mining Tools Text Mining Infrastructures Text Mining for Biodiversity Resources Corpora ACE Meta-
Knowledge Anatomy Corpora BioCause ChEBI CHR Controllable readablity corpus COPD GENIA GENIA Meta-
Knowledge GREC HIMERA Metabolite and Enzyme MC-Fake Occupational Exposure PHAEDRA PhenoCHF Entities Normalisation Relations Format Download Terminologies Time-sensitive medical inventory Chinese Biomedical Resources Bio-Lexicon Anatomy Resources Evaluation BioNLP Shared Task 2013 BioNLP Shared Task 2011 BioNLP'09 Shared Task Terms & Conditions FAQ News & Events People Projects Publications Community External Collaboration Vacancies Teaching & Tutorials Feedback How to find us

Relation Annotation in CHF

Annotation scheme

In the narrative EHR reports of PhenoCHF, three types of relations involving entity mentions have been annotated. Compared to entity mention annotation, which identifies mentions of concepts occurring in text, relation annotation encodes some of the more complex pieces of information expressed in text. Specifically, a sentence will often describe how different concepts are are linked toogether in particular ways, or will provide a particular interpretation of an entity.

Table 1 provides details of the three types of relations that have been annotated in PhenoCHF (narrative EHR reports only). Please see the Entity Mention annotation page for descriptions of the different types of entities involved in the relationships. All annotated relationships occur within the scope of a single sentence. Two of these relationships involve pairs of entity mentions which, according to the information provided in the sentence, are associated with each other in specific ways. The semantic label assigned to the relation determines the nature of the association between the two entity mentions. The third relationship (Negate) is annotated when the context of the sentence alters the default interpretation of an entity (i.e., it becomes negated).

Table 1. Types of relations annotated in PhenoCHF

Relation Type	Description	First entity type(s)	Second entity type(s)	Example
Causality	The concept referred to by the first entity mention is responsible for the concept refered to by the second entity mention	Chief complaint Cause Risk Factor Non- traditional Risk factor	Non- traditional Risk Factor Cause
Finding	The mentioned organ is associated with the manifestation or abnormal variation that is observed during the diagnosis process.	Organ	Sign & Symptom
Negate	A word or phrase denoting negation (a polarity cue) is annotated and linked to the mention of the condition that it negates	Polarity cue	Finding Cause Non- traditional risk factor

The two relationships between pairs of entity mentions are are based on relationships in the UMLS semantic network:

• Causality - based on the causes relation in the UMLS semantic network that holds between two diseases or a disease and a pathologic function
• Finding - based on the manifestation relation in the UMLS semantic network that holds between a sign or symptom and a body part or organ

Relation annotation statistics

All relationships of the types shown in Table 1 were annotated in all narrative EHR records. The total counts of each type of relationship annotated are shown in Table 2

Agreement

The relationship annotations were undertaken by two medical doctors. The quality and consistency of the annotations were verified through the calculation of inter-annotator agreement (IAA). We calculated IAA in terms of F-Score, and found that high levels of agreement were acheived (i.e., a macro-averaged F-Score of 0.91).