SemEval-2016 task 12: Clinical TempEval

157Citations
Citations of this article
104Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Clinical TempEval 2016 evaluated temporal information extraction systems on the clinical domain. Nine sub-tasks were included, covering problems in time expression identification, event expression identification and temporal relation identification. Participant systems were trained and evaluated on a corpus of clinical and pathology notes from the Mayo Clinic, annotated with an extension of TimeML for the clinical domain. 14 teams submitted a total of 40 system runs, with the best systems achieving near-human performance on identifying events and times. On identifying temporal relations, there was a gap between the best systems and human performance, but the gap was less than half the gap of Clinical TempEval 2015.

References Powered by Scopus

Evaluating temporal relations in clinical text: 2012 i2b2 Challenge

360Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Multilingual and cross-domain temporal tagging

168Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Brundlefly at SemEval-2016 task 12: Recurrent neural networks vs. joint inference for clinical temporal information extraction

33Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Clinical information extraction applications: A literature review

539Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

2018 n2c2 shared task on adverse drug events and medication extraction in electronic health records

205Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Enhancing clinical concept extraction with contextual embeddings

203Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bethard, S., Chen, W. T., Pustejovsky, J., Savova, G., Derczynski, L., & Verhagen, M. (2016). SemEval-2016 task 12: Clinical TempEval. In SemEval 2016 - 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, Proceedings (pp. 1052–1062). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/s16-1165

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2408162432

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 35

64%

Researcher 15

27%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

5%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 40

74%

Linguistics 7

13%

Engineering 5

9%

Neuroscience 2

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0