<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>MedIR July</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Retrieving Attitudes: Sentiment Analysis from Clinical Narratives</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Yihan Deng</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Matthaeus Stoehr</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Kerstin Denecke</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>ENT Clinic, University Hospital Leipzig</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Liebigstr. 10, Leipzig</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>ICCAS, University of Leipzig</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Semmelweissstr. 14, Leipzig</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2014</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>11</volume>
      <issue>2014</issue>
      <fpage>12</fpage>
      <lpage>15</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Physicians and nurses express their judgments and observations towards a patient's health status in clinical narratives. Thus, their judgments are explicitly or implicitly included in patient records. To get impressions on the current health situation of a patient or on changes in the status, analysis and retrieval of this subjective content is crucial. In this paper, we approach this question as sentiment analysis problem and analyze the feasibility of assessing these judgments in clinical text by means of general sentiment analysis methods. Speci cally, the word usage in clinical narratives and in a general text corpus is compared. The linguistic characteristics of judgments in clinical narratives are collected. Besides, the requirements for sentiment analysis and retrieval from clinical narratives are derived.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Categories and Subject Descriptors</title>
      <p>H.3 [INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL]:
Content Analysis and Indexing
Clinical text mining, Sentiment analysis</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>1. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>
        Sentiment analysis deals with determining the sentiment
with respect to a speci c topic expressed in natural language
text. So far, the development of sentiment analysis
methods concentrated on processing very opinionated, subjective
texts such as customer reviews [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3 ref4">3, 4</xref>
        ]. Clearly, sentiment in
clinical documents di ers from sentiment in user-generated
content or other text types. With the term sentiment we
refer to information on the health status, or on the outcome
of a medical treatment or change / seriousness of a symptom
(e.g. serious pain) or the certainty of an observation. The
work presented in this paper intends to get a more complete
view on the facets of sentiment in clinical texts. With the
development of the principles of evidence-based medicine [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]
and digital patient modeling [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], the observations and
judgments expressed in clinical narratives will play a crucial role
for the clinical decision process.
      </p>
      <p>Consider the following scenario: During the daily ward
round, a physician is making observations with respect to
the health status of a patient (e.g. symptoms improved).
The patient describes his personal experiences on the
symptoms such as the degree of pain. All this information re ects
the individual health status and is documented in clinical
notes. Retrieving, analyzing and aggregating this
information over time can support the treatment decisions and
allows a physician to quickly get an overview on the health
status. Another application example is retrieving attitudes
from clinical documents which can support assessing the
outcome of treatments. In this way, labor-intensive user studies
for treatment or medication evaluation can be facilitated.</p>
      <p>
        For processing clinical narratives in the last years, e
ective algorithms in particular for named entity recognition
and relation extraction [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] have been developed. Based on
recognized entities and relations between entities, sentiments
expressed in medical narratives can now be analyzed to o er
an upper-level text understanding. Further, a corresponding
retrieval of judgments or sentiments can be realized.
However, sentiments, opinions and intentions expressed in
clinical narratives have not been well exploited yet. In this
paper, we start analyzing the sentiment expressions used in
clinical texts through a linguistic comparison with a
nonmedical, subjective text corpus.
      </p>
      <p>Conventional methods for sentiment analysis have been
developed for processing subjective on-line documents such as
weblogs and forums. In this paper, our goal is to analyze
the applicability of such methods for sentiment analysis in
clinical narratives. We will identify necessary extensions of
existing methods and come up with the requirement of
sentiment in clinical narratives. To this end, we will rst
compare two types of medical narratives (radiology report and
nurse letter) with a weblog data set. The lexical and
linguistic di erences will be presented. Afterwards, we will apply
a general subjectivity lexicon to medical narratives using
dictionary-based methods. Sources of errors of this simple
sentiment recognition approach will be discussed. The
following research questions will be addressed:
1. In comparison with user generation content, which
lexical characteristics do clinical narratives have?
2. What characterizes sentiments in clinical narratives?
3. Can existing methods for sentiment analysis be
applied? Which adaptations are necessary?</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>2. SENTIMENT ANALYSIS IN THE MEDI</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>CAL DOMAIN</title>
      <p>
        To our best knowledge, few work considered sentiment
analysis in medical texts: Xia et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] have indicated that
sentiments are topics-related. Their approach to sentiment
analysis starts with a standard topic classi er based on topic
labels. In the second step, special classi ers are initialized
to detect the polarity for each topic. The multi-step
classi cation method has earned a nearly 10% improvement of
F1 measure in comparison with the single-step approach.
Niu et al. consider sentiment analysis in biomedical
literature [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. They exploit a supervised method to classify the
polarity at sentence level. The linguistic features such as
uni-grams, bi-grams and negations are employed. The
medical terms are merely replaced by their semantic category.
The category information and context information are
derived from the Uni ed Medical Language System (UMLS1).
The combination of linguistic features and domain-speci c
knowledge have improved the accuracy of the algorithm.
In summary, existing methods for sentiment analysis in the
medical domain focus on processing biomedical literature
and patient-generated text. The clinical text which is used
to record the activities and judgments of health care
workers has not yet been analyzed. Moreover, the existing
approaches and de nitions of sentiment in the medical domain
are derived from general sentiment analysis for Web 2.0
media. Clinical context and medical knowledge have not been
used thoroughly besides some category meta data derived
from the UMLS [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5 ref7">7, 5</xref>
        ]. We expect that due to di erent
expressions and the more objective way of writing in the
clinical narratives, the conventional sentiment analysis methods
need to be adapted to cope with the clinical context. We
will concentrate on that particular text material.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>METHODOLOGY</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Text Material</title>
      <p>In order to analyze the di erences between the language
in clinical narratives and general texts from the Internet,
200 nurse letters and 200 radiology reports from \MIMIC II
Database2" have been chosen as corpus. These documents
form the domain-speci c data source in our assessment. For
comparison reasons, we additionally consider 200 technical
interviews downloaded from the website Slashdot3. We have
chosen that particular dataset since it belongs to the
category of user-generated, subjective content. Given the
technical topics, we however expect a certain similarity, mainly
an objectivity as it occurs in clinical narratives.
Nurse Letter: A nurse letter is part of a patient record,
and is written by nurses on duty. Its content re ects the
situation of the patient and the feedback to the ongoing
treatment. It is written in a relatively subjective manner.
Acronyms and typos appear very often in nurse letters.
1http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/,
20.04.2014
2http://www.physionet.org/, accessed 20.04.2014
3http://slashdot.org, accessed 20.04.2014
accessed:</p>
      <p>Radiology Report: A radiological report is mainly used
to inform the treating physicians about the ndings in an
radiological examination. It starts usually with a medical
history, which is followed by a description of the region of
interest and questions for the examinations. The texts
contain many judgments and observations as observed in the
examination.</p>
      <p>Slashdot Interviews: Slashdot is a technology-related
weblog, which covers di erent technical topics. The users
express their opinions on certain topics. We chose the
technical interviews as benchmark instead of movie or product
review, since technical interviews contain also a relatively
large amount of terminologies.
3.2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Linguistic and Sentiment Analysis of the</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Data Sets</title>
      <p>
        Apparently, the three text sources are di erent in terms
of terminology usage and content. The interview corpus is
typical user generated content. We expect that the corpus
will contain a relatively large amount of sentiment terms
and subjective expressions, while the clinical narratives are
written in a more objective way. Less opinionated terms and
rather more clinical terminology are expected. However, the
question is whether the terminology and word usage is
really distributed as expected. To what extent do the corpora
di er with respect to linguistic characteristics? Recalling
our initial research questions, we need to answer whether
existing sentiment lexicons can provide the basis for
analyzing judgments and sentiments in clinical narratives. In
order to address these questions, an extraction pipeline has
been built to obtain part of speeches and sentiment terms
from the texts and to determine their occurrence frequency.
The Penn Tree POS-tagger4 and the SL sentiment lexicon
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] (contains 8,221 single-term subjective expressions) have
been exploited for this purpose. The punctuation, numbers
and stop words were also extracted and their proportions
were calculated.
      </p>
      <p>
        After analyzing the linguistic composition of the data sets,
we want to study the applicability of a dictionary-based
sentiment analysis approach on clinical narratives. Potential
limitations of the approach when applied to medical
narratives will be identi ed. For this purpose, we have created
an experiment pipeline in KNIME5. Two dictionary taggers
were applied to recognize positive and negative terms in the
text respectively. A voting algorithm is applied to calculate
the polarity for each document. It is based on the number
of positive and negative occurrences and handles negations.
Although it is only a simple approach, it is a direct method
to evaluate the compatibility between the subjectivity
lexicon and clinical narratives. The SL sentiment lexicon from
Wilson et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] is used by the dictionary tagger. It
comprises a large amount of adjectives, adverbs, but also nouns
and verbs expressing sentiments. For evaluation purposes,
the three corpora were annotated with an overall document
polarity at document level by one physician from our
university hospital.
4.1
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>Results of the Linguistic Analysis</title>
      <p>4http://www.cis.upenn.edu/ treebank/, accessed 20.04.2014
5http://www.knime.org/, accessed 20.4.2014
In Figure 1, the proportions of punctuations, numbers,
stop words, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs as well
as the sentiment terms are illustrated. Part of speeches of
terms that matched with the sentiment lexicon have not
been considered. The result has partially con rmed our
expectation.</p>
      <p>Sentiment Terms: According to the results, the normal
interview corpus contains the highest proportion of sentiment
terms with 8%, while the radiology reports contain 4% and
nurse letters 6% sentiment terms. These results have
approved our observation that nurse letters are written more
subjectively in comparison to radiology reports, but they
are still more objective than the interviews. The sentiments
expressed in nurse letters are normally implicit and appear
with the description of patient's health status, or the social
records for the visitors of the patients. Opinionated terms
and expressions such as suspicion, negation, approval or
recommendations can be found in radiology reports mainly in
the conclusion section or impression part at the end of the
whole report.</p>
      <p>Number: Numbers are one of the most important elements
in clinical reports, where they are mainly used to represent
the dose of medications, the size of a tumor or the frequency
of a treatment, etc. In our clinical data sets, numbers
comprise between 2% and 3% of the words or characters. In
contrast, in the interviews almost no numbers occur, since
the discussions in weblogs are more likely to use simple,
colloquial vocabulary to present the personal attitudes and
preferences.</p>
      <p>Stop Word: The nurse letters and radiology reports
contain 13% and 17% stop words respectively. In contrast, the
percentage of stop words in the interview corpus is with 32%
signi cantly higher, which shows that the clinical documents
are clearly written in a concise way, focusing on facts.</p>
      <p>Nouns and Pronouns: What noteworthy is, the percentage
of nouns in radiology reports (31%) and nurse letter (33%)
is clearly higher than the percentage of nouns in interviews
(21%), while the percentage of pronouns in the interviews
(4%) is notably higher than in the radiology report (0%)
and nurse letters (1%). The reason is that in medical facts
are described in clinical narratives using nouns from medical
terminologies (e.g. names of diseases, symptoms ,
medications). In contrast, the interviews contain more subjective
terms and use a large amount of rst person expressions to
express the ideas and opinions of individuals.</p>
      <p>Adjective and Adverb: Another interesting nding is that
the clinical narratives contain a substantial amount of
adTypes</p>
      <p>Accu(overall) F1(Bad) F1(Neutral) F1(Good)
Interviews 0.696
Nurse
Letter
Radiology
Report
0.420
0.446
0.754
0.437
0.297
0.367
0.216
0.080
0.735
0.503
0.559
jectives (6-8% of the terms) that are not included in the SL
sentiment lexicon. In contrast, all adjectives in the interview
corpus matched with the sentiment lexicon. The additional
adjectives in clinical narratives are mainly related to body
locations, such as \left" side, \right" side, \vertical", "dorsal",
\cervical". They express neither emotion nor attitude but
anatomical concepts and relative locations in the body. In
summary, the nurse letters show a relatively higher
linguistic similarity to technical interviews than radiology reports.
They are to a certain extent more subjectively written than
radiology reports. The large amount of the medical terms
(noun, adjective) describe the status of a patient. They
reect the attitudes of physicians. Thus, the implicit clinical
events may in uence the polarity outcome of a clinical
report as well. Consequently, the implicit clinical events and
evidences are expected to be relevant to understand and
interpret the status of the patient.
4.2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>Results of the Sentiment Analysis</title>
      <p>The automatically retrieved polarity for the texts were
compared to the manual annotation done by clinical experts.
The overall accuracy and F1 measure for the three text types
is shown in Table 4.1: Accuracy is the proportion of true
results in the population. The sentiment analysis of
interviews leads to an acceptable accuracy of 69.6%. The results
for nurse letters and radiology reports have merely achieved
the accuracies of 42% and 44% respectively. This shows that
existing methods need to be adapted when processing these
texts and that sentiment is di erent. Furthermore, the F1
measure for positive texts (F1 good) is signi cantly higher
for the clinical texts than for negative (F1 bad) texts. A
manual assessment showed that the positive sentiments or
outcomes are described in an explicit way, e.g., by phrases
such as the \patient slept well, the treatment has a
satisfactory result" or \the tube has been placed successfully". For
negative clinical events, the nurse and physician were more
likely to express the status of patient in a careful and
cautious manner, e.g. by phrase such as \some situation cannot
be excluded or need further pathological investigation". The
radiology reports are more likely to exclude or con rm the
occurrences of certain clinical events rather than to give a
nal diagnosis. In addition, the recognition of neutral
situations is di cult, since the judgment of neutral outcome
depends on the recognition of positive and negative terms.
However, neutral clinical outcomes in real world are
probably not objectively expressed. Some surgical result may only
show moderate e ect, but it may turn out to be an
insignificant outcome in nurse letters or might even produce some
negative feedbacks. During the annotation, our physician
tended to give more positive and negative judgments to the
reports rather than neutral ones, since the determination
of \neutral" needs more context and reference, which is not
that easy to obtain without knowing the complete patient
history.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK</title>
      <p>In this paper, we have studied the linguistic
characteristics of clinical narratives compared to a web data set and
analyzed the feasibility of a simple sentiment analysis
approach on clinical narratives. The results provide important
insights to understand sentiment in clinical narratives and
to continue with developing corresponding analysis
methods. The initial three research questions raised in Section 1
can be answered.</p>
      <p>1. The linguistic analysis showed that clinical narratives
contain a moderate amount of sentiment terms. In
contrast to the web data set, more numbers,
medical terms (nouns), location-related adjectives are
exploited and less stop words, and less pronouns are
included. This composition and word usage re ects the
objectivity and preciseness of the clinical writing style.
2. By analyzing the clinical documents, we learned more
about the nature of sentiment in clinical narratives.
Sentiment can concern the general health status of a
patient, the outcome of a treatment or of a speci c
medical condition or can concern uncertainty of an
observation. Good, bad or positive and negative is
manifested in status changes, e.g. an improvement or
worsening of a certain medical or physical condition or
the success or failure of a treatment. Sentiment can be
seen as health status of a patient: The patient's health
status can be good, bad or normal at some point in
time, expressed either implicitly or explicitly. By
analyzing that health status over time, improvements or
worsening in the status can be recognized. An implicit
description of a health status concerns the mentioning
of critical symptoms (e.g. serious pain, extreme weight
loss, high blood pressure). A explicit description of the
health status is re ected through phrases such as \the
patient recovered well" or \normal". Sentiment in
clinical texts can be the outcome of a treatment or the
impact of a speci c medical condition, i.e. whether the
condition improved or worsens which allows to draw
conclusions on the e ect or outcome of a treatment
(positive/negative outcome). The phrase \blood sugar
decreased" could express a positive or negative change
depending on the previous state. A decrease of blood
pressure can be good when it was too high before. This
also shows that for interpreting the detected sentiment,
the context need to be considered. Further, sentiment
can be seen as presence, change in or certainty of a
medical condition. I.e. a medical condition can exist,
improve, worsen, be certain or uncertain. The
treatment outcome can be positive, negative (e.g. surgery
was successful or failed), neutral or a treatment can
have no outcome.
3. A simple method for sentiment analysis is not well
suited to analyze sentiment in clinical narratives.
Sentiment in clinical texts di ers signi cantly from
sentiment in general texts. In particular, implicit
sentiments need to be detected. An adapted annotation
scheme should be de ned with the help of physicians.
New features for sentiment analysis need to be
collected for gathering these subjective sentiments.
In the short term, we will develop a sentiment lexicon
speci c for the medical domain. It will de ne a scheme for
analyzing and retrieving implicit sentiments and attitudes
expressed in clinical texts. The kind of in uence and
degree of in uence of a symptom to the health status will be
de ned. This lexicon or ontology will be exploited for
developing a more comprehensive sentiment analysis algorithm.
6.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Denecke</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Model-based Decision Support: Requirements and Future for its Application in Surgery</article-title>
          .
          <source>Biomedical Engineering</source>
          ,
          <volume>58</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Friedman</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T. C.
          <article-title>Rind esch</article-title>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Corn</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Natural language processing: State of the art and prospects for signi cant progress, a workshop sponsored by the national library of medicine</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Biomedical Informatics</source>
          ,
          <volume>46</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ):
          <volume>765</volume>
          {
          <fpage>773</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Hu</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Mining and summarizing customer reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proc. Tenth ACM SIGKDD, KDD '04</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>168</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>177</fpage>
          , New York, NY, USA,
          <year>2004</year>
          . ACM.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B. Liu. Sentiment</given-names>
            <surname>Analysis</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Opinion</given-names>
            <surname>Mining</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Synthesis Lectures on HLT. Morgan &amp; Claypool Publishers,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Niu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
            <surname>Zhu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Li</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>G. Hirst.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Analysis of polarity information in medical text</article-title>
          .
          <source>In In: Proc of the AMIA 2005 Annual Symposium</source>
          , pages
          <volume>570</volume>
          {
          <fpage>574</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D. L.</given-names>
            <surname>Sackett</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W. M.</given-names>
            <surname>Rosenberg</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Gray</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. B.</given-names>
            <surname>Haynes</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Richardson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't</article-title>
          . BMJ,
          <volume>312</volume>
          (
          <issue>7023</issue>
          ):
          <volume>71</volume>
          {
          <fpage>72</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1996</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Sarker</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Molla</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and C. Paris.
          <article-title>Outcome polarity identi cation of medical papers</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2011</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>105</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>114</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Canberra</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Australia,
          <year>December 2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Wilson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Wiebe</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>P.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Ho mann. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proc of HLT '05</source>
          , HLT '
          <volume>05</volume>
          , pages
          <fpage>347</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>354</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stroudsburg</surname>
          </string-name>
          , PA, USA,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>Association for Computational Linguistics</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Xia</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. L.</given-names>
            <surname>Gentile</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Munro</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Iria</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Improving patient opinion mining through multi-step classi cation</article-title>
          .
          <source>In TSD</source>
          , pages
          <volume>70</volume>
          {
          <fpage>76</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>