Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24454579›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2013

Automating case definitions using literature-based reasoning.

T Botsis, R Ball

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Biomedical literature-based clinical phenotype definition discovery using large language models.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Monitoring biomedical literature for post-market safety purposes by analyzing networks of text-based coded information.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2017
    Article
  7. Use of data mining at the Food and Drug Administration.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Review
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

2 authors.

T Botsis
R BallOffice of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , Rockville, MD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstablishing a Case Definition (CDef) is a first step in many epidemiological, clinical, surveillance, and research activities. The application of CDefs still relies on manual steps and this is a major source of inefficiency in surveillance and research.

objectiveDescribe the need and propose an approach for automating the useful representation of CDefs for medical conditions.

methodsWe translated the existing Brighton Collaboration CDef for anaphylaxis by mostly relying on the identification of synonyms for the criteria of the CDef using the NLM MetaMap tool. We also generated a CDef for the same condition using all the related PubMed abstracts, processing them with a text mining tool, and further treating the synonyms with the above strategy. The co-occurrence of the anaphylaxis and any other medical term within the same sentence of the abstracts supported the construction of a large semantic network. The 'islands' algorithm reduced the network and revealed its densest region including the nodes that were used to represent the key criteria of the CDef. We evaluated the ability of the "translated" and the "generated" CDef to classify a set of 6034 H1N1 reports for anaphylaxis using two similarity approaches and comparing them with our previous semi-automated classification approach.

resultsOverall classification performance across approaches to producing CDefs was similar, with the generated CDef and vector space model with cosine similarity having the highest accuracy (0.825 ± 0.003) and the semi-automated approach and vector space model with cosine similarity having the highest recall (0.809 ± 0.042). Precision was low for all approaches.

conclusionThe useful representation of CDefs is a complicated task but potentially offers substantial gains in efficiency to support safety and clinical surveillance.

Indexed as

Data MiningAlgorithmsAutomationHumansMedical InformaticsProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingSafetyanaphylaxisCase definitionliterature-based reasoningsafety surveillancesemantic networkssimilarity

Identifiers

PMID24454579
PMCPMC3885912

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.