Brigitte N Durieux, Samuel R Zverev, Elise C Tarbi, Anne Kwok, Kate Sciacca, Kathryn I Pollak, James A Tulsky, Charlotta Lindvall
{"title":"Development of a keyword library for capturing PRO-CTCAE-focused \"symptom talk\" in oncology conversations.","authors":"Brigitte N Durieux, Samuel R Zverev, Elise C Tarbi, Anne Kwok, Kate Sciacca, Kathryn I Pollak, James A Tulsky, Charlotta Lindvall","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As computational methods for detecting symptoms can help us better attend to patient suffering, the objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate the performance of a natural language processing keyword library for detecting symptom talk, and to describe symptom communication within our dataset to generate insights for future model building.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a secondary analysis of 121 transcribed outpatient oncology conversations from the Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters trial. Through an iterative process of identifying symptom expressions via inductive and deductive techniques, we generated a library of keywords relevant to the Patient-Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) framework from 90 conversations, and tested the library on 31 additional transcripts. To contextualize symptom expressions and the nature of misclassifications, we qualitatively analyzed 450 mislabeled and properly labeled symptom-positive turns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final library, comprising 1320 terms, identified symptom talk among conversation turns with an F1 of 0.82 against a PRO-CTCAE-focused gold standard, and an F1 of 0.61 against a broad gold standard. Qualitative observations suggest that physical symptoms are more easily detected than psychological symptoms (eg, anxiety), and ambiguity persists throughout symptom communication.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This rudimentary keyword library captures most PRO-CTCAE-focused symptom talk, but the ambiguity of symptom speech limits the utility of rule-based methods alone, and limits to generalizability must be considered.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings highlight opportunities for more advanced computational models to detect symptom expressions from transcribed clinical conversations. Future improvements in speech-to-text could enable real-time detection at scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"6 1","pages":"ooad009"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9912707/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Objectives: As computational methods for detecting symptoms can help us better attend to patient suffering, the objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate the performance of a natural language processing keyword library for detecting symptom talk, and to describe symptom communication within our dataset to generate insights for future model building.
Materials and methods: This was a secondary analysis of 121 transcribed outpatient oncology conversations from the Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters trial. Through an iterative process of identifying symptom expressions via inductive and deductive techniques, we generated a library of keywords relevant to the Patient-Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) framework from 90 conversations, and tested the library on 31 additional transcripts. To contextualize symptom expressions and the nature of misclassifications, we qualitatively analyzed 450 mislabeled and properly labeled symptom-positive turns.
Results: The final library, comprising 1320 terms, identified symptom talk among conversation turns with an F1 of 0.82 against a PRO-CTCAE-focused gold standard, and an F1 of 0.61 against a broad gold standard. Qualitative observations suggest that physical symptoms are more easily detected than psychological symptoms (eg, anxiety), and ambiguity persists throughout symptom communication.
Discussion: This rudimentary keyword library captures most PRO-CTCAE-focused symptom talk, but the ambiguity of symptom speech limits the utility of rule-based methods alone, and limits to generalizability must be considered.
Conclusion: Our findings highlight opportunities for more advanced computational models to detect symptom expressions from transcribed clinical conversations. Future improvements in speech-to-text could enable real-time detection at scale.