ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2010
Exploiting UMLS semantics for checking semantic consistency among UMLS concepts.
Article in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review of auditing techniques for the Unified Medical Language System.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Review
- CodeMapper: semiautomatic coding of case definitions. A contribution from the ADVANCE project.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2017Article
- Exploiting the UMLS Metathesaurus for extracting and categorizing concepts representing signs and symptoms to anatomically related organ systems.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2015Article
- Evaluating alignment quality between iconic language and reference terminologies using similarity metrics.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify semantic inconsistency in UMLS concepts from the perspective of their hierarchical relations and to show through examples how semantically-inconsistent concepts can help reveal erroneous synonymy relations.
methodsInconsistency is defined in reference to concepts from the UMLS Metathesaurus. Consistency is evaluated by comparing the semantic groups of the two concepts in each pair of hierarchically-related concepts. A limited number of inconsistent concepts was inspected manually.
results81,512 concepts are inconsistent due to the differences in semantic groups between a concept and its parent. Four examples of wrong synonymy are presented.
conclusionsA vast majority of inconsistent hierarchical relations are not indicative of any errors. We discovered an interesting semantic pattern along hierarchies, which seems associated with wrong synonymy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20841786PMC4303374What 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.