Comparison of the Results of Manual and Automated Processes of Cross-Mapping Between Nursing Terms: Quantitative Study

Abstract

Background Cross-mapping establishes equivalence between terms from different terminology systems, which is useful for interoperability, updated terminological versions, and reuse of terms. Due to the number of terms to be mapped, this work can be extensive, tedious, and thorough, and it is susceptible to errors; this can be minimized by automated processes, which use computational tools. Objective The aim of this study was to compare the results of manual and automated term mapping processes. Methods In this descriptive, quantitative study, we used the results of two mapping processes as an empirical basis: manual, which used 2638 terms of nurses’ records from a university hospital in southern Brazil and the International Classification for Nursing Practice (ICNP); and automated, which used the same university hospital terms and the primitive terms of the ICNP through MappICNP, an algorithm based on rules of natural language processing. The two processes were compared via equality and exclusivity assessments of new terms of the automated process and of candidate terms. Results The automated process mapped 569/2638 (21.56%) of the source bank’s terms as identical, and the manual process mapped 650/2638 (24.63%) as identical. Regarding new terms, the automated process mapped 1031/2638 (39.08%) of the source bank’s terms as new, while the manual process mapped 1251 (47.42%). In particular, manual mapping identified 101/2638 (3.82%) terms as identical and 429 (16.26%) as new, whereas the automated process identified 20 (0.75%) terms as identical and 209 (7.92%) as new. Of the 209 terms mapped as new by the automated process, it was possible to establish an equivalence with ICNP terms in 48 (23.0%) cases. An analysis of the candidate terms offered by the automated process to the 429 new terms mapped exclusively by the manual process resulted in 100 (23.3%) candidates that had a semantic relationship with the source term. Conclusions The automated and manual processes map identical and new terms in similar ways and can be considered complementary. Direct identification of identical terms and the offering of candidate terms through the automated process facilitate and enhance the results of the mapping; confirmation of the precision of the automated mapping requires further analysis by researchers.