Extracting structured clinical information from free-text general practitioner (GP) notes in Dutch requires language- and setting-specific annotation resources. The Netherlands lacked a reusable event-annotation framework targeted at infections, post-acute infection syndromes (PAIS), and related symptoms in primary care. To address this gap, the authors adapted the English COVID-19 Annotated Clinical Text (CACT) framework for Dutch primary-care notes and applied it to event extraction for PAIS.
The adaptation process involved translating and extending CACT to reflect Dutch clinical practice and the structure of GP records. The authors developed rules and resources that account for how events and evidence are documented in Dutch general practice, with explicit attention to testing practices and note structure typical of the Netherlands. The resulting adaptation was implemented as a three-layer annotation framework suitable for annotating infection-related events and sequelae in Dutch-language free text.
The adapted framework comprises three complementary layers:
A DiagnosticExpression typology that captures clinical event mentions encompassing acute infections, post-acute syndromes, and clinically relevant comorbidities.
An eleven-subtype Evidence inventory grounded in Dutch primary-care testing and documentation practices; this inventory categorises the types of evidence cited in GP notes when clinicians record infection-related events.
Explicit decision rules for handling the SOEP structure of Dutch GP notes (Subjective, Objective, Evaluation, Plan), which guide how annotators should interpret and mark spans in different note sections.
These layers are designed to support event-level extraction rather than only entity recognition, enabling downstream clinical NLP tasks that require temporality, certainty, and source distinctions.
Annotations follow rules tailored to the SOEP organisation of Dutch GP notes. The framework includes guidance to distinguish between clinician hedging (e.g., tentative diagnostic language) and patient-side hypotheticals, which affects whether and how an event mention is annotated as a documented clinical event. The decision rules aim to increase annotation consistency across subjective patient reports, objective findings, the clinician’s evaluation, and planned actions.
A pilot annotation exercise used 200 GP notes. Performance was measured at span level using the Lybarger criterion. Across six core entities, the span-level F1 reached 0.51 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.47 to 0.55. When analysis was restricted to spans that both annotators had noticed (conditional evaluation), the F1 increased to 0.78 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.75 to 0.80. The authors interpret these results as indicating that most disagreement between annotators arose from coverage differences (which spans to mark) rather than from disagreements about label assignment once a span was selected.
The underlying GP corpus used for annotation is not openly releasable under GDPR. The authors state that data from the participating primary-care network may be requested for research purposes, subject to approval by the network’s research committee and adherence to the applicable data-use conditions. No open dataset is provided in the preprint.
The Medical Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht waived formal ethical approval for this work because the study is not subject to the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO). The authors confirm that necessary participant consent and institutional forms were archived according to applicable procedures. They declared no competing interests. Funding was declared from ZonMw (The Dutch Organisation for knowledge and innovation in health, healthcare and well-being).
The report notes that while the adaptation shows feasibility of porting an English event-based annotation framework to a new language and clinical setting, it remains to be tested which adaptation steps generalise beyond this CACT-to-Dutch-PAIS case and which are specific to Dutch primary care or to PAIS annotation. The GDPR restriction on the primary-care corpus limits immediate open sharing of annotated notes, which may affect reproducibility and external validation unless access is approved through the network’s procedures.
Adapting CACT to Dutch primary care produced a reusable, three-layer event-annotation framework for infections and PAIS, plus SOEP-focused decision rules and an evidence inventory aligned with Dutch practice. Pilot metrics show moderate span-level agreement overall and substantially higher conditional agreement when both annotators flagged the same spans, suggesting that future refinement should prioritise harmonising span coverage. The framework provides a resource for Dutch clinical NLP work on infection-related events, while additional evaluation is needed to determine which elements generalise to other languages, settings, and post-infectious conditions.