n2c2-concept-relation-eval
Clinical Concept and Relation Extraction Using Prompt-based Machine Reading Comprehension — Peng et al. (2023) (arXiv:2303.08262, 2023)
What this evaluates
Evaluates clinical NLP models on extracting medical concepts and their relations from clinical notes. It probes the model's ability to handle nested/overlapped concepts and assesses cross-institutional generalization across different benchmark years.
Datasets
- n2c2 2018 — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- n2c2 2022 — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- n2c2 cross-institution (MIMIC-train/UW-test) — total ?; splits: train (-1), test (-1)
Metrics
strict micro-averaged F1-score(primary) — range: [0, 1]- Micro-averaged F1 computed over all concept and relation categories. Strict matching requires exact span boundary and type alignment between prediction and gold. Calculated using official 2018 n2c2 challenge evaluation scripts.
lenient micro-averaged F1-score— range: [0, 1]- Micro-averaged F1 computed over all concept and relation categories. Lenient matching allows partial boundary overlap for nested/overlapped concepts.
Input / output format
Input: Clinical text passages formatted as machine reading comprehension (MRC) prompts/questions.
Output: Extracted clinical concepts and relations, evaluated against gold annotations.
Scoring recipe
tp, fp, fn = 0, 0, 0
for pred_set, gold_set in zip(predictions, golds):
for pred in pred_set:
if pred in gold_set: tp += 1
else: fp += 1
for gold in gold_set:
if gold not in pred_set: fn += 1
precision = tp / (tp + fp) if (tp + fp) > 0 else 0
recall = tp / (tp + fn) if (tp + fn) > 0 else 0
f1 = 2 * precision * recall / (precision + recall) if (precision + recall) > 0 else 0
Common pitfalls
- Strict vs. lenient matching criteria differ significantly for nested/overlapped concepts; using the wrong script yields misleading F1 scores.
- Metrics must be aggregated micro-averaged across all concept and relation categories, not macro-averaged or per-category.
- Official n2c2 evaluation scripts must be used; custom implementations often diverge on boundary handling.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
We reported the strict and lenient micro-averaged precision, recall, and F1-score aggregated from all concept and relation categories. The official evaluation scripts provided by the 2018 n2c2 challenges were used to calculate the scores.
Citation
@misc{peng2023clinicalconcept,
title={Clinical Concept and Relation Extraction Using Prompt-based Machine Reading Comprehension},
author={Peng et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2303.08262}
}
- arXiv: 2303.08262