Semantic Interpretation of Medical Language - Quantitative Analysis and Qualitative Yield

  • Martin Romacker
  • Udo Hahn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2101)


We report on results from an empirical analysis of the semantic interpretation of medical free texts. Our approach to semantic interpretation is based on a lean collection of interpretation rules which are triggered by well-defined configurations in dependency graphs in order to compute a conceptual representation of the texts’ contents. We evaluate the accuracy of semantic interpretation for three types of syntactic dependency patterns, viz. genitives, auxiliary and modal verb complexes, and prepositional phrases. Besides quantitative considerations, we focus on the heuristic guidance, as provided by patterns underlying the semantic interpretation of prepositional phrases, for monitoring the quality of the medical domain knowledge base.


Lamina Propria Conceptual Relation Dependency Graph Medical Informatics Content Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. Friedman and G. Hripcsak. Evaluating natural language processors in the clinical domain. Methods of Information in Medicine, 37(4/5):334–344, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Friedman, G. Hripcsak, W. DuMouchel, S. Johnson, and P. Clayton. Natural language processing in an operational clinical information system. Natural Language Engineering, 1(1):83–108, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U. Hahn, M. Romacker, and St. Schulz. MEDSynDiKATe: Design considerations for an ontology-based medical text understanding system. In J. M. Overhage, editor, AMIA 2000 — Proc. of the Annual Symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association, pages 330–334. Los Angeles, CA, November 4–8, 2000. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Hripcsak, C. Friedman, P. Alderson, W. DuMouchel, S. Johnson, and PD. Clayton. Unlocking clinical data from narrative reports: a study of natural language processing. Annals of Internal Medicine, 122(9):681–688, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Klar, A. Zaiß, A. Timmermann, and U. Schrader. The information system of the Freiburger University Hospital. In K. Adlassnig et al., editor, MIE’91 — Proceedings of the Medical Informatics Europe 1991, pages 46–50. Berlin: Springer, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Nazarenko, P. Zweigenbaum, J. Bouaud, and B. Habert. Corpus-based identification and refinement of semantic classes. In R. Masys, editor, AMIA’97 — Proc. of the 1997 AMIA Annual Fall Symposium (formerly SCAMC), pages 585–589. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Rector, D. Solomon, W. Nowlan, and T. Rush. A terminology server for medical language and medical information systems. Methods of Information in Medicine, 34(2):147–157, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Romacker, St. Schulz, and U. Hahn. Small is beautiful: Compact semantics for medical language processing. In W. Horn, Y. Shahar, G. Lindberg, S. Andreassen, and J. Wyatt, editors, AIMDM’99 — Proc. of the Joint European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Medical Decision Making, pages 400–410. Berlin: Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Siegel and J. Castellan. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2 edition, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Woods and J. Schmolze. The Kl-One family. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23(2/5):133–177, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Zweigenbaum, J. Bouaud, B. Bachimont, J. Charlet, and J.-F. Boisvieux. Evaluating a normalized conceptual representation produced from natural language patient discharge summaries. In R. Masys, editor, AMIA’97 — Proc. of the 1997 AMIA Annual Fall Symposium (formerly SCAMC), pages 590–594. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Romacker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Udo Hahn
    • 2
  1. 1.Text Knowledge Engineering Lab, GroupFreiburg UniversityGermany
  2. 2.Department of Medical InformaticsFreiburg University HospitalGermany

Personalised recommendations