ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Automatically identifying health outcome information in MEDLINE records.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- Extraction of data deposition statements from the literature: a method for automatically tracking research results.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2011Article
- Automatic classification of sentences to support Evidence Based Medicine.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- Sentence retrieval for abstracts of randomized controlled trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2009Article
- Towards automatic recognition of scientifically rigorous clinical research evidence.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUnderstanding the effect of a given intervention on the patient's health outcome is one of the key elements in providing optimal patient care. This study presents a methodology for automatic identification of outcomes-related information in medical text and evaluates its potential in satisfying clinical information needs related to health care outcomes.
designAn annotation scheme based on an evidence-based medicine model for critical appraisal of evidence was developed and used to annotate 633 MEDLINE citations. Textual, structural, and meta-information features essential to outcome identification were learned from the created collection and used to develop an automatic system. Accuracy of automatic outcome identification was assessed in an intrinsic evaluation and in an extrinsic evaluation, in which ranking of MEDLINE search results obtained using PubMed Clinical Queries relied on identified outcome statements. MEASUREMENTS: The accuracy and positive predictive value of outcome identification were calculated. Effectiveness of the outcome-based ranking was measured using mean average precision and precision at rank 10.
resultsAutomatic outcome identification achieved 88% to 93% accuracy. The positive predictive value of individual sentences identified as outcomes ranged from 30% to 37%. Outcome-based ranking improved retrieval accuracy, tripling mean average precision and achieving 389% improvement in precision at rank 10.
conclusionPreliminary results in outcome-based document ranking show potential validity of the evidence-based medicine-model approach in timely delivery of information critical to clinical decision support at the point of service.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.