ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Comparing Medline citations using modified N-grams.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Online reviews in primary care - a mimicry indicator of quality? A comparative analysis across urban and rural regions in Germany.Research in health services & regions · 2025Article
- Normal Workflow and Key Strategies for Data Cleaning Toward Real-World Data: Viewpoint.Interactive journal of medical research · 2023Article
- No wisdom in the crowd: genome annotation in the era of big data - current status and future prospects.Microbial biotechnology · 2018Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aim to identify duplicate pairs of Medline citations, particularly when the documents are not identical but contain similar information. MATERIALS AND
methodsDuplicate pairs of citations are identified by comparing word n-grams in pairs of documents. N-grams are modified using two approaches which take account of the fact that the document may have been altered. These are: (1) deletion, an item in the n-gram is removed; and (2) substitution, an item in the n-gram is substituted with a similar term obtained from the Unified Medical Language System Metathesaurus. N-grams are also weighted using a score derived from a language model. Evaluation is carried out using a set of 520 Medline citation pairs, including a set of 260 manually verified duplicate pairs obtained from the Deja Vu database.
resultsThe approach accurately detects duplicate Medline document pairs with an F1 measure score of 0.99. Allowing for word deletions and substitution improves performance. The best results are obtained by combining scores for n-grams of length 1-5 words. DISCUSSION: Results show that the detection of duplicate Medline citations can be improved by modifying n-grams and that high performance can also be obtained using only unigrams (F1=0.959), particularly when allowing for substitutions of alternative phrases.
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.