Abstract:Background Parsing, which generates a syntactic structure of a sentence (a parse tree), is a critical component of natural language processing (NLP) research in any domain including medicine. Although parsers developed in the general English domain, such as the Stanford parser, have been applied to clinical text, there are no formal evaluations and comparisons of their performance in the medical domain. Methods In this study, we investigated the performance of three state-of-the-art parsers: the Stanford parser, the Bikel parser, and the Charniak parser, using following two datasets: (1) A Treebank containing 1,100 sentences that were randomly selected from progress notes used in the 2010 i2b2 NLP challenge and manually annotated according to a Penn Treebank based guideline; and (2) the MiPACQ Treebank, which is developed based on pathology notes and clinical notes, containing 13,091 sentences. We conducted three experiments on both datasets. First, we measured the performance of the three state-of-the-art parsers on the clinical Treebanks with their default settings. Then we re-trained the parsers using the clinical Treebanks and evaluated their performance using the 10-fold cross validation method. Finally we re-trained the parsers by combining the clinical Treebanks with the Penn Treebank. Results Our results showed that the original parsers achieved lower performance in clinical text (Bracketing F-measure in the range of 66.6%-70.3%) compared to general English text. After retraining on the clinical Treebank, all parsers achieved better performance, with the best performance from the Stanford parser that reached the highest Bracketing F-measure of 73.68% on progress notes and 83.72% on the MiPACQ corpus using 10-fold cross validation. When the combined clinical Treebanks and Penn Treebank was used, of the three parsers, the Charniak parser achieved the highest Bracketing F-measure of 73.53% on progress notes and the Stanford parser reached the highest F-measure of 84.15% on the MiPACQ corpus. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that re-training using clinical Treebanks is critical for improving general English parsers' performance on clinical text, and combining clinical and open domain corpora might achieve optimal performance for parsing clinical text.

Comparison of Syntactic Parsers on Biomedical Texts

Parsing Clinical Text: How Good Are the State-of-the-art Parsers?

An Initial Study of Full Parsing of Clinical Text Using the Stanford Parser.

Performance of Stanford and Minipar Parser on Biomedical Texts

Semantic Role Labeling of Clinical Text: Comparing Syntactic Parsers and Features.

From POS tagging to dependency parsing for biomedical event extraction

Towards Effective Sentence Simplification for Automatic Processing of Biomedical Text

Syntactic Parsing of Clinical Text: Guideline and Corpus Development with Handling Ill-Formed Sentences

LI-EMRSQL: Linking Information Enhanced Text2SQL Parsing on Complex Electronic Medical Records

Parts-of-Speech Tagger Errors Do Not Necessarily Degrade Accuracy in Extracting Information from Biomedical Text

A Hybrid Method for Relation Extraction from Biomedical Literature

A survey of automated methods for biomedical text simplification

Comparison among Four Prominent Text Processing Tools

BiomedParse: a biomedical foundation model for image parsing of everything everywhere all at once

Comparative Analysis of Semantic and Syntactic Approaches in Automatic Text Summarization: A Comprehensive Review and Evaluation

Researches on Large Scale Corpus-Based Syntactic Pattern Matching

A syntactic rule-based method for automatic pathway information extraction from biomédical literature

Methodical Systematic Review of Abstractive Summarization and Natural Language Processing Models for Biomedical Health Informatics: Approaches, Metrics and Challenges

Adapting Abstract Meaning Representation Parsing to the Clinical Narrative -- the SPRING THYME parser

Comparative Analysis of Text Classification Approaches in Electronic Health Records