Abstract
Objective This work aims to explore the feasibility of validating Dutch concept extraction tools using annotated corpora translated from English, focusing on preserving annotations during translation and addressing the challenge posed by the scarcity of non-English corpora in clinical settings.
Materials and methods Three annotated corpora were standardized and translated from English to Dutch using two machine translation services, Google Translate and OpenAI GPT-4, with annotations preserved through a proposed method of embedding annotations in the text before translation. The performance of two concept extraction tools, MedSpaCy and MedCAT, was assessed across the corpora in both Dutch and English.
Results The translation process effectively generated Dutch annotated corpora, allowing the concept extraction tools to perform similarly in both English and Dutch. Although there were some differences in how annotations were preserved across translations, these did not affect extraction accuracy. Supervised MedCAT models consistently outperformed unsupervised models, whereas MedSpaCy demonstrated high recall but lower precision.
Discussion Our validation of Dutch concept extraction tools on corpora translated from English was successful, highlighting the efficacy of our annotation preservation method and the potential for efficiently creating multilingual corpora. Further improvements and comparisons of annotation preservation techniques and strategies for corpus synthesis could lead to more efficient development of multilingual corpora and more accurate non-English clinical concept extraction tools.
Conclusion This study has demonstrated that translated English corpora can be effectively used to validate non-English concept extraction tools. The annotation preservation method used during translation proved effective, and future research should aim to extend this corpus translation method to additional languages and clinical settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work has received support from the European Health Data & Evidence Network (EHDEN) project. EHDEN has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No. 806968. The JU receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and EFPIA.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used only openly available data, more specifically, we used a clinical corpus from Physionet containing human data in the form of deidentified clinical notes. ShARe/CLEF: https://physionet.org/content/shareclefehealth2014task2/1.0/ The other two public datasets are not based on human data: Medmentions: https://github.com/chanzuckerberg/MedMentions Mantra: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25948699/
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
