Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Do It Right! A Methodology for Successful NLP System Development

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Algorithm skill alone does not make clinical NLP succeed; managing the full Systems Development Life Cycle does, and large language models make that discipline more necessary, not less.

desk verdict Solid process synthesis for clinical IE that correctly updates SDLC for LLM failure modes; useful guidance, not a new result or causal proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05644 v1 pith:AGX5M2MX submitted 2026-07-06 cs.CL cs.AI

Olga V. Patterson , Brett South , T. Elizabeth Workman , Scott L DuVall This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords clinicalnaturallanguageprocessingsystemsdevelopmentlifecycleinformationextractionlargemodelstextannotationfeasibilityanalysismaintenance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that clinical natural language processing for information extraction fails less from weak algorithms than from unmanaged process. Textbooks and tutorials teach parsing, tagging, and models, and large language models now make extraction look easy via an API key, yet systems still fabricate content, omit real findings, and answer inconsistently to reworded prompts. The authors transplant the classic Systems Development Life Cycle—planning, analysis, design, implementation, testing, deployment, and maintenance—into clinical extraction work. They treat the work as analogous to retrospective chart abstraction: success depends on clear purpose and scope, concept sheets, feasibility checks that information is actually present and extractable, matched annotation, strict train/test separation, evaluation of effectiveness not only F1, deployment under data-governance constraints, and ongoing revalidation against linguistic drift and, for hosted models, silent version changes. A sympathetic reader cares because clinical decisions and research datasets rest on this output; a fast prototype that looks fluent is not yet a trustworthy tool.

What carries the argument

The Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) as a managed sequence of phases—Planning, Analysis, Design, Implementation, Testing, Deployment, Maintenance—applied as an iterative cycle to clinical information extraction, with concept sheets, feasibility analysis of semantic and contextual ambiguity, and matched annotation as the load-bearing early steps.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison of matched clinical extraction projects—one cohort run under explicit SDLC discipline (documented concept sheets, feasibility review, matched annotation, held-out test, revalidation logs) and one under algorithm- or prompt-first practice—would show whether measured failure, rework, or error rates fall when the cycle is followed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Regardless of project size, deliberately carrying a clinical information-extraction system through the Systems Development Life Cycle—especially purpose and scope definition, feasibility analysis that information exists and is machine-accessible, annotation that matches the system’s true data access, clean train/test separation, effectiveness evaluation, governed deployment, and maintenance against linguistic and model-version drift—raises the chance of a usable, trustworthy system. Large language models expand what is possible but introduce hallucination, prompt sensitivity, non-determinism, and model-version drift that make the same process more, not less, necessary.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the main reason clinical NLP projects fail is the same mismanagement already documented in general software and chart-abstraction work, so transplanting the classic SDLC sequence is the right primary remedy, without controlled evidence that SDLC adherence itself cuts clinical NLP failure rates.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This methodology paper argues that clinical NLP information-extraction projects fail for the same process reasons documented in MIS software and chart-abstraction literature, and that deliberately applying the classic SDLC phases—planning, analysis, design, implementation, testing, deployment, and maintenance—improves the chance of a usable system. It maps each phase to concrete clinical-NLP practices (concept sheets, semantic/contextual ambiguity checks, matched annotation, pipeline design, train/test separation, efficacy vs. effectiveness, error analysis, and revalidation against linguistic and model-version drift) and argues that LLMs expand capability while introducing failure modes (hallucination, prompt sensitivity, non-determinism, model-version drift, data governance) that make process discipline more, not less, necessary. The paper is explicitly literature- and practice-based rather than a new empirical trial.

Significance. If the process framing holds, the paper is a useful, timely synthesis for clinical informatics: it counters the common impression that algorithms or LLM APIs alone suffice, and it gives multidisciplinary teams a shared checklist that spans feasibility, annotation design, evaluation, deployment governance, and maintenance. Strengths include the explicit parallel to chart abstraction, the insistence that annotators see only what the system will see, the distinction between efficacy and effectiveness, the systematic/random/hallucination error taxonomy, and the treatment of model-version drift as a maintenance concern. The contribution is pedagogical and organizational rather than a new algorithm or causal trial; that is appropriate for a methodology paper but limits claims of demonstrated impact.

major comments (2)
  1. Introduction, §2, and Conclusions: The central claim that SDLC adherence improves clinical NLP success rests on transplanting MIS failure literature [14, 22] and chart-review methodology [15–17] without controlled or even systematic observational evidence that process mismanagement is the dominant failure mode in clinical NLP, or that SDLC adherence reduces failure relative to algorithm- or LLM-first practice. For a methodology paper this is acceptable if framed as structured guidance, but the manuscript should state the evidential limit more explicitly and avoid language that reads as a demonstrated causal remedy.
  2. §4.1–4.3 and §8: Feasibility and evaluation recommendations are sound in principle, but the paper does not specify operational decision rules (e.g., how much manual review, what agreement threshold, what residual error rate is acceptable for a given purpose in Table 1). Without such criteria, teams cannot know when to stop iterating or when to abandon automation. Adding illustrative thresholds or worked decision points would make the guidance actionable rather than only conceptual.
minor comments (5)
  1. References [28]–[31] list incomplete bibliographic detail (“Venue pending verification,” “Authors TBD”). These should be completed or replaced with citable sources before publication.
  2. Affiliation is a placeholder; corresponding-author contact is present but institutional affiliation should be filled for the published version.
  3. Figure 1 and Figure 3 are described but not fully self-contained in the text; ensure captions and in-text callouts make the productivity pyramid and the cyclic SDLC readable without the figure alone.
  4. Table 1 usefully contrasts three purpose scenarios; a short note on how success metrics differ across rows (publication novelty vs. dataset accuracy vs. operational robustness) would tighten the link to later testing/effectiveness sections.
  5. Minor wording: occasional missing spaces after punctuation in the source (e.g., “Italsorevealsthekinds”) should be cleaned in production.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: methodology paper with no fitted parameters, no self-referential derivations, and recommendations grounded in external literature.

full rationale

This is a process-methodology paper that maps the classic Systems Development Life Cycle (planning, analysis, design, implementation, testing, deployment, maintenance) onto clinical information-extraction NLP, with additional discussion of LLM-specific failure modes (hallucination, prompt sensitivity, non-determinism, model-version drift, data governance). It advances no quantitative prediction, no fitted parameter renamed as a result, and no uniqueness theorem. Load-bearing support is drawn from external MIS project-failure literature (e.g., Kappelman et al., Nelson), chart-abstraction methodology, and standard clinical NLP practice; author-affiliated prior work appears only as illustrative experience (e.g., advanced basal-cell-carcinoma extraction, sublanguage clustering) and is not required to force the SDLC claim. There is therefore no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. Circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a process-methodology paper, not a parametric model. Load-bearing content is domain assumptions imported from software engineering and clinical documentation practice, plus the untested transfer of MIS failure causes to clinical NLP. No free parameters are fitted; no new physical or computational entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mismanagement is a primary cause of software project failure and clinical NLP projects share that risk profile.
    Invoked in Introduction and §2 via MIS literature (e.g., Kappelman et al.) to justify applying SDLC.
  • domain assumption Manual chart-abstraction quality practices (definitions, training, adjudication, agreement) transfer to LLM-based extraction because LLMs approximate human reading of narrative notes.
    Stated in Introduction as the conceptual bridge that makes SDLC and chart-review discipline applicable to LLMs.
  • domain assumption Target clinical information may be absent, ambiguous, or only present as surrogates in care-oriented documentation, so feasibility must be assessed before system building.
    Core of §4 Analysis; underpins the claim that algorithm choice alone is insufficient.
  • domain assumption Reference standards must be produced under the same information access constraints the NLP system will have, or measured performance is misleading.
    §5 Annotation; load-bearing for valid evaluation claims.
  • domain assumption Clinical language and hosted LLM model versions both drift over time, so deployed systems require scheduled revalidation.
    §10 Maintenance; supports the cycle claim rather than one-shot deployment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do It Right! A Methodology for Successful NLP System Development." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGX5M2MX

@misc{pith2026260705644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do It Right! A Methodology for Successful NLP System Development},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGX5M2MX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05644}
}
read the original abstract

Natural language processing (NLP) is a common method for supplying data to clinical research and decision making by extracting information from electronic medical records. Numerous textbooks and tutorials describe specific algorithms and applications for text processing, yet algorithmic knowledge is only one ingredient of a successful NLP project. Drawing on the available literature, this paper presents a stepwise approach that applies the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) to projects that rely on data extraction through language processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Concerns of the language engineer (after Leidner, 2003). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance factors in system evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Systems Development Life Cycle as an iterative cycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Névéol, P

    A. Névéol, P. Zweigenbaum, Clinical Natural Language Processing in 2014: Foundational Methods Supporting Efficient Healthcare., Year- book of medical informatics 10 (1) (2015) 194–8.doi:10.15265/ IY-2015-035. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26293868http://www. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC4587052

    work page arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Névéol, P

    A. Névéol, P. Zweigenbaum, Clinical Natural Language Processing in 2015: Leveraging the Variety of Texts of Clinical Interest., Yearbook of medical informatics (1) (2016) 234–239.doi:10.15265/IY-2016-049. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27830256

    work page doi:10.15265/iy-2016-049 2015

  3. [3]

    Friedman, S

    C. Friedman, S. B. Johnson, Natural Language and Text Processing in Biomedicine, Springer New York, 2006, pp. 312–343.doi:10.1007/ 0-387-36278-9_8. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/0-387-36278-9_8

    work page doi:10.1007/0-387-36278-9_8 2006

  4. [4]

    K. S. Jones, Natural language processing: a historical review, in: Cur- rent Issues in Computational Linguistics: in Honour of Don Walker, Vol. 7, 1994, pp. 3–16.doi:10.1007/978-0-585-35958-8_1. 24

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-585-35958-8_1 1994

  5. [5]

    Sager, C

    N. Sager, C. Friedman, M. S. Lyman, Medical Language Processing: Computer Management of Narrative Data, New York: Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, 1987. URLhttp://www.worldcat.org/oclc/13947442http://www. aclweb.org/anthology/J/J89/J89-3009.pdfhttp://portal.acm. org/citation.cfm?id=49103.1046397

    work page arXiv 1987

  6. [6]

    S. Doan, M. Conway, T. M. Phuong, L. Ohno-Machado, Natural language processing in biomedicine: a unified system architecture overview., Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) 1168 (2014) 275–94.arXiv:1401.0569,doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0847-9_16. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24870142%5Cnhttp: //arxiv.org/abs/1401.0569http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0847-9_16 2014

  7. [7]

    P. M. Nadkarni, L. Ohno-Machado, W. W. Chapman, Natural language processing: an introduction, Journal of the Amer- ican Medical Informatics Association 18 (5) (2011) 544–551. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000464. URLhttp://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/ amiajnl-2011-000464http://jamia.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/ doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000464

    doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000464 2011

  8. [8]

    R. Grishman, Information extraction: Techniques and challenges, Infor- mation Extraction A Multidisciplinary Approach to an Emerging Infor- mation Technology (1997) 10–27doi:10.1007/3-540-63438-X_2

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-63438-x_2 1997

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    M. J. Schuemie, J. A. Kors, B. Mons, Word sense disambiguation in the biomedical domain: an overview., Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology 12 (5) (2005) 554–65. doi:10.1089/cmb.2005.12.554. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15952878

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    Sarawagi, Information Extraction, Foundations and Trends in Databases 1 (3) (2008) 261–377.doi:10.1561/1900000003

    S. Sarawagi, Information Extraction, Foundations and Trends in Databases 1 (3) (2008) 261–377.doi:10.1561/1900000003. URLhttp://www.nowpublishers.com/product.aspx?product=DBS& doi=1900000003 25

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    S. M. Meystre, G. K. Savova, K. C. Kipper-Schuler, J. F. Hurdle, Ex- tracting information from textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research., Yearbook of medical informatics (2008) 128–44. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18660887

    2008

  4. [12]

    Demner-Fushman, W

    D. Demner-Fushman, W. W. Chapman, C. J. McDonald, What can natural language processing do for clinical decision support?, Journal of biomedical informatics 42 (5) (2009) 760–72.doi:10.1016/j.jbi. 2009.08.007. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683066

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Spyns, Natural language processing in medicine: an overview., Methods of information in medicine 35 (4-5) (1996) 285–301

    P. Spyns, Natural language processing in medicine: an overview., Methods of information in medicine 35 (4-5) (1996) 285–301. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9019092?dopt= Citationhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9019092

    1996

  6. [14]

    L. A. Kappelman, R. McKeeman, L. Zhang, Early Warn- ing Signs of it Project Failure: The Dominant Dozen, In- formation Systems Management 23 (4) (2006) 31–36.doi: 10.1201/1078.10580530/46352.23.4.20060901/95110.4. URLhttp://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid= 27084ed3...

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    Vassar, M

    M. Vassar, M. Holzmann, The retrospective chart review: important methodological considerations, J Educ Eval Health Prof 10 (2013).doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2013.10.12

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    R. E. Gearing, I. A. Mian, J. Barber, A. Ickowicz, A methodology for conducting retrospective chart review research in child and adolescent psychiatry., Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l’Académie canadienne de psychiatrie de l’en...

    2006

  9. [17]

    L. A. Knake, M. Ahuja, E. L. McDonald, K. K. Ryckman, N. Weathers, T. Burstain, J. M. Dagle, J. C. Murray, P. Nadkarni, Quality of EHR data extractions for studies of preterm birth in a tertiary care center: guidelines for obtaining reliable data., BMC pediatrics 16 (2016) 59....

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    W. Yeoh, A. Koronios, Critical success factors for business intelligence systems, in: Journal of computer information systems, Vol. 50, 2010, pp. 23–32.doi:abs/10.1080/08874417.2010.11645404. URLhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08874417. 2010.11645404

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Asosheh, S

    A. Asosheh, S. Nalchigar, M. Jamporazmey, Information technology project evaluation: An integrated data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard approach, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (8) (2010) 5931–5938.doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.012. URLhttp://linkinghub.elsevier....

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    Baccarini, Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success, Project Management Journal (1999)

    D. Baccarini, Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success, Project Management Journal (1999). URLhttps://www.pmi.org/learning/library/ logical-framework-method-defining-project-success-5309

    1999

  13. [21]

    Davis, Logical framework analysis: a methodology to turn vision into reality, in: AIPM National Conference, 2005

    K. Davis, Logical framework analysis: a methodology to turn vision into reality, in: AIPM National Conference, 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    R. R. Nelson, IT Project Management: Infamous Failures, Classic Mistakes, and Best Practices, MIS Quarterly Executive 6 (2) (2007) 67–78. URLhttp://misqe.org/ojs2/index.php/misqe/article/view/ 128http://www2.comm.virginia.edu/cmit/Research/MISQE6-07. pdf

    2007

  15. [23]

    D. K. Iwamoto, W. M. Liu, The impact of racial identity, ethnic iden- tity, asian values and race-related stress on Asian Americans and Asian internationalcollegestudents’psychologicalwell-being., Journalofcoun- seling psychology 57 (1) (2010) 79–91.doi:10.1037/a0017393. 27 UR...

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    S. M. Meystre, Y. Kim, G. T. Gobbel, M. E. Matheny, A. Redd, B. E. Bray, J. H. Garvin, Congestive heart failure information extraction framework for automated treatment performance measures assessment., Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 24 (e1) (2...

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Divita, T

    G. Divita, T. E. Workman, M. E. Carter, A. Redd, M. H. Samore, A. V. Gundlapalli, PlateRunner: A Search Engine to Identify EMR Boilerplates., Studies in health technology and informatics 226 (2016) 33–6. URLhttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? artid=3900197&too...

    2016

  18. [26]

    V. Liu, M. P. Clark, M. Mendoza, R. Saket, M. N. Gardner, B. J. Turk, G. J. Escobar, Automated identification of pneumonia in chest radio- graph reports in critically ill patients., BMC medical informatics and decision making 13 (2013) 90.doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-90. URLhttp:/...

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Topaz, K

    M. Topaz, K. Lai, D. Dowding, V. J. Lei, A. Zisberg, K. H. Bowles, L. Zhou, Automated identification of wound information in clinical notes of patients with heart diseases: Developing and validating a nat- ural language processing application., International journal of nursing...

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Guo, et al., Improving large language models for clinical named en- tity recognition via prompt engineeringPMC11339492

    Z. Guo, et al., Improving large language models for clinical named en- tity recognition via prompt engineeringPMC11339492. Venue pending verification. (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Syrstad, et al., Harnessing large language models for efficient data extraction in systematic reviews: the role of prompt engineer- ingPMC12559671

    O. Syrstad, et al., Harnessing large language models for efficient data extraction in systematic reviews: the role of prompt engineer- ingPMC12559671. Venue pending verification. (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Venue pending ver- ification

    Authors TBD, Retrieval augmented generation for large language mod- els in healthcare: a systematic reviewPMC12157099. Venue pending ver- ification. (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Authors TBD, Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in healthcare: a comprehensive review, AI (MDPI) 6 (9) (2025) 226

    2025

  24. [32]

    T. Wolf, L. Debut, V. Sanh, et al., HuggingFace’s Transformers: State- of-the-art natural language processing, in: Proceedings of the 2020 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020, ...

    2020

  25. [33]

    P.Qi, Y.Zhang, Y.Zhang, J.Bolton, C.D.Manning, Stanza: APython natural language processing toolkit for many human languages, arXiv (2020).arXiv:2003.07082,doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.14

    2020 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Honnibal, I

    M. Honnibal, I. Montani, S. Van Landeghem, A. Boyd, spaCy: Industrial-strength natural language processing in Python, Zenodo, 2020.doi:10.5281/zenodo.1212303

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    M. J. Jurafsky D., Speech and Language Processing, 2nd (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Sapir, Language: An introduction to the study of speech, 1921

    E. Sapir, Language: An introduction to the study of speech, 1921. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3,doi:10.2307/3713880

    1921 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lupyan, R

    G. Lupyan, R. Dale, The role of adaptation in understanding linguistic diversity, Language Structure and Environment Social, cultural, and natural factors Edited by Rik De Busser and Randy J. LaPolla (2015) 184doi:10.1075/clscc.6.11lup. URLhttps://benjamins.com/catalog/clscc.6...

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    W. L. Hamilton, J. Leskovec, D. Jurafsky, Cultural Shift or Linguistic Drift? Comparing Two Computational Measures of Semantic Change., Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Pr...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Gentner, I

    D. Gentner, I. M. France, The Verb Mutability Effect: Stud- ies of the Combinatorial Semantics of Nouns and Verbs, in: Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, Elsevier, 1988, pp. 343–382. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50018-5. URLhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ B9780080510...

    1988 doi

  32. [40]

    Z. S. Harris, A Theory of Language and Information: A Mathematical Approach, Clarendon Press, 1991. URLhttp://www.dmi.columbia.edu/zellig/langinf.html

    1991

  33. [41]

    Friedman, P

    C. Friedman, P. Kra, A. Rzhetsky, Two biomedical sublanguages: a description based on the theories of Zellig Harris., Journal of biomed- ical informatics 35 (4) (2002) 222–35.doi:10.1016/S1532-0464(03) 00012-1. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12755517

    2002 doi

  34. [42]

    Patterson, J

    O. Patterson, J. F. Hurdle, Document clustering of clinical narratives: a systematic study of clinical sublanguages., AMIA ... Annual Sympo- sium proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium 2011 (2011) 1099–1107. URLhttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? artid=3...

    2011

  35. [43]

    Doing-Harris, O

    K. Doing-Harris, O. Patterson, S. Igo, J. Hurdle, Document Sublan- guage Clustering to Detect Medical Specialty in Cross-institutional Clinical Texts., in: Proceedings of the ACM ... International Workshop on Data and Text Mining in Biomedical Informatics . ACM Interna- tional...

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Bernhardt, S

    P. Bernhardt, S. M. Humphrey, T. C. Rindflesch, Determining promi- nent subdomains in medicine, AMIA Annu Symp Proc (2005) 46–50. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16778999?dopt= Citation

    2005

  37. [45]

    D. S. Carrell, R. E. Schoen, D. A. Leffler, M. Morris, S. Rose, A. Baer, S. D. Crockett, R. A. Gourevitch, K. M. Dean, A. Mehrotra, Challenges in adapting existing clinical natural language processing systems to multiple, diverse health care settings., Journal of the American ...

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.