ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2009
Annotation and retrieval of clinically relevant images.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can Big Data guide prognosis and clinical decisions in epilepsy?Epilepsia · 2021Review
- Development of a Structured Query Language and Natural Language Processing Algorithm to Identify Lung Nodules in a Cancer Centre.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Generate Structured Radiology Report from CT Images Using Image Annotation Techniques: Preliminary Results with Liver CT.Journal of digital imaging · 2020Article
- Mining biomedical images towards valuable information retrieval in biomedical and life sciences.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016Review
- Biomedical image representation approach using visualness and spatial information in a concept feature space for interactive region-of-interest-based retrieval.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2015Article
- Figure-associated text summarization and evaluation.PloS one · 2015Article
- On combining image-based and ontological semantic dissimilarities for medical image retrieval applications.Medical image analysis · 2014Article
- Learning to rank figures within a biomedical article.PloS one · 2014Article
- A framework for biomedical figure segmentation towards image-based document retrieval.BMC systems biology · 2013Article
- An image feature-based approach to automatically find images for application to clinical decision support.Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society · 2011Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMedical images are a significant information source for clinical decision-making. Currently available information retrieval and decision support systems rely primarily on the text of scientific publications to find evidence in support of clinical information needs. The images and illustrations are available only within the full text of a scientific publication and do not directly contribute evidence to such systems. Our first goal is to explore whether image features facilitate finding relevant images that appear in publications. Our second goal is to find promising approaches for providing clinical evidence at the point of service, leveraging information contained in the text and images.
methodsWe studied two approaches to finding illustrative evidence: a supervised machine-learning approach, in which images are classified as being relevant to an information need or not, and a pipeline information retrieval approach, in which images were retrieved using associated text and then re-ranked using content-based image retrieval (CBIR) techniques.
resultsOur information retrieval approach did not benefit from combining textual and image information. However, given sufficient training data for the machine-learning approach, we achieved 56% average precision at 94% recall using textual features, and 27% average precision at 86% recall using image features. Combining these classifiers resulted in improvement up to 81% precision at 96% recall (74% recall at 85% precision, on average) for the requests with over 180 positive training examples.
conclusionsOur supervised machine-learning methods that combine information from image and text are capable of achieving image annotation and retrieval accuracy acceptable for providing clinical evidence, given sufficient training data.
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.