Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17482521›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedical informatics2007

Conceptual knowledge acquisition in biomedicine: A methodological review.

Philip R O Payne, Eneida A Mendonça, Stephen B Johnson, Justin B Starren

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Automatic knowledge-based recognition of low-level tasks in ophthalmological procedures.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2013
    Article
  8. Chapter 1: Biomedical knowledge integration.PLoS computational biology · 2012
    Article
  9. The TOKEn project: knowledge synthesis for in silico science.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2011
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Validation of knowledge acquisition for surgical process models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    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

4 authors.

Philip R O PayneThe Ohio State University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, 3190 Graves Hall, 333 West 10th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1239, USA.
Eneida A Mendonça
Stephen B Johnson
Justin B Starren

Funding

Training in Biomedical Informatics at Columbia UniversityT15LM007079 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI NOEMIE ELHADAD, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 1992 to 2026
$28.9M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of conceptual knowledge collections or structures within the biomedical domain is pervasive, spanning a variety of applications including controlled terminologies, semantic networks, ontologies, and database schemas. A number of theoretical constructs and practical methods or techniques support the development and evaluation of conceptual knowledge collections. This review will provide an overview of the current state of knowledge concerning conceptual knowledge acquisition, drawing from multiple contributing academic disciplines such as biomedicine, computer science, cognitive science, education, linguistics, semiotics, and psychology. In addition, multiple taxonomic approaches to the description and selection of conceptual knowledge acquisition and evaluation techniques will be proposed in order to partially address the apparent fragmentation of the current literature concerning this domain.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchDatabases, BibliographicDecision TreesDocumentationExpert SystemsForecastingLanguageLinguisticsModels, TheoreticalQuality ControlSemanticsSoftware ValidationSymbolism

Identifiers

PMID17482521
PMCPMC2082059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.