Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16232314›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2005

Automatic extraction of candidate nomenclature terms using the doublet method.

Jules J Berman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jules J BermanCancer Diagnosis Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. jjberman@alum.mit.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew terminology continuously enters the biomedical literature. How can curators identify new terms that can be added to existing nomenclatures? The most direct method, and one that has served well, involves reading the current literature. The scholarly curator adds new terms as they are encountered. Present-day scholars are severely challenged by the enormous volume of biomedical literature. Curators of medical nomenclatures need computational assistance if they hope to keep their terminologies current. The purpose of this paper is to describe a method of rapidly extracting new, candidate terms from huge volumes of biomedical text. The resulting lists of terms can be quickly reviewed by curators and added to nomenclatures, if appropriate. The candidate term extractor uses a variation of the previously described doublet coding method. The algorithm, which operates on virtually any nomenclature, derives from the observation that most terms within a knowledge domain are composed entirely of word combinations found in other terms from the same knowledge domain. Terms can be expressed as sequences of overlapping word doublets that have more specific meaning than the individual words that compose the term. The algorithm parses through text, finding contiguous sequences of word doublets that are known to occur somewhere in the reference nomenclature. When a sequence of matching word doublets is encountered, it is compared with whole terms already included in the nomenclature. If the doublet sequence is not already in the nomenclature, it is extracted as a candidate new term. Candidate new terms can be reviewed by a curator to determine if they should be added to the nomenclature. An implementation of the algorithm is demonstrated, using a corpus of published abstracts obtained through the National Library of Medicine's PubMed query service and using "The developmental lineage classification and taxonomy of neoplasms" as a reference nomenclature.

resultsA 31+ Megabyte corpus of pathology journal abstracts was parsed using the doublet extraction method. This corpus consisted of 4,289 records, each containing an abstract title. The total number of words included in the abstract titles was 50,547. New candidate terms for the nomenclature were automatically extracted from the titles of abstracts in the corpus. Total execution time on a desktop computer with CPU speed of 2.79 GHz was 2 seconds. The resulting output consisted of 313 new candidate terms, each consisting of concatenated doublets found in the reference nomenclature. Human review of the 313 candidate terms yielded a list of 285 terms approved by a curator. A final automatic extraction of duplicate terms yielded a final list of 222 new terms (71% of the original 313 extracted candidate terms) that could be added to the reference nomenclature.

conclusionThe doublet method for automatically extracting candidate nomenclature terms can be used to quickly find new terms from vast amounts of text. The method can be immediately adapted for virtually any text and any nomenclature. An implementation of the algorithm, in the Perl programming language, is provided with this article.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalMedical Informatics ComputingTerminology as TopicAbstracting and IndexingAlgorithmsElectronic Data ProcessingHumansMedical Subject HeadingsNational Library of Medicine (U.S.)NeoplasmsPubMedSemanticsSystems IntegrationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID16232314
PMCPMC1274323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.