Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22621674›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012

Text summarization as a decision support aid.

T Elizabeth Workman, Marcelo Fiszman, John F Hurdle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Information Capsule: A New Approach for Summarizing Medical Information.International journal of preventive medicine · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

T Elizabeth WorkmanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, HSEB 5775, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. emaillizw@yahoo.com
Marcelo Fiszman
John F Hurdle

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MEDICAL INFORMATICS TRAININGT15LM007124 · NLM · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Karen Louise Eilbeck · 1997 to 2026
$22.0M
POET-2: High-performance computing for advanced clinical narrative preprocessingR01LM010981 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HURDLE, JOHN F. · 2011 to 2013
$936k
BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS/BOSTON HEALTHNET INTERNG08LM007123 · NLM · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI GINN, DAVID · 2001 to 2001
$40k
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010981NLM NIH HHS T15LM007123NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPubMed data potentially can provide decision support information, but PubMed was not exclusively designed to be a point-of-care tool. Natural language processing applications that summarize PubMed citations hold promise for extracting decision support information. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of a text summarization application called Semantic MEDLINE, enhanced with a novel dynamic summarization method, in identifying decision support data.

methodsWe downloaded PubMed citations addressing the prevention and drug treatment of four disease topics. We then processed the citations with Semantic MEDLINE, enhanced with the dynamic summarization method. We also processed the citations with a conventional summarization method, as well as with a baseline procedure. We evaluated the results using clinician-vetted reference standards built from recommendations in a commercial decision support product, DynaMed.

resultsFor the drug treatment data, Semantic MEDLINE enhanced with dynamic summarization achieved average recall and precision scores of 0.848 and 0.377, while conventional summarization produced 0.583 average recall and 0.712 average precision, and the baseline method yielded average recall and precision values of 0.252 and 0.277. For the prevention data, Semantic MEDLINE enhanced with dynamic summarization achieved average recall and precision scores of 0.655 and 0.329. The baseline technique resulted in recall and precision scores of 0.269 and 0.247. No conventional Semantic MEDLINE method accommodating summarization for prevention exists.

conclusionSemantic MEDLINE with dynamic summarization outperformed conventional summarization in terms of recall, and outperformed the baseline method in both recall and precision. This new approach to text summarization demonstrates potential in identifying decision support data for multiple needs.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDecision Support TechniquesSemanticsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Heart FailureHumansHypertensionInformation Storage and RetrievalMEDLINENatural Language ProcessingPneumonia, PneumococcalPubMed

Identifiers

PMID22621674
PMCPMC3461485

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.