ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2014
Using large clinical corpora for query expansion in text-based cohort identification.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying Natural Language Processing to Textual Data From Clinical Data Warehouses: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Review
- Evaluation of patient-level retrieval from electronic health record data for a cohort discovery task.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- A supervised term ranking model for diversity enhanced biomedical information retrieval.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Extracting similar terms from multiple EMR-based semantic embeddings to support chart reviews.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2018Article
- Aligned-Layer Text Search in Clinical Notes.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2017Article
- A Part-Of-Speech term weighting scheme for biomedical information retrieval.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2016Article
- Interactive Cohort Identification of Sleep Disorder Patients Using Natural Language Processing and i2b2.Applied clinical informatics · 2015Article
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
In light of the heightened problems of polysemy, synonymy, and hyponymy in clinical text, we hypothesize that patient cohort identification can be improved by using a large, in-domain clinical corpus for query expansion. We evaluate the utility of four auxiliary collections for the Text REtrieval Conference task of IR-based cohort retrieval, considering the effects of collection size, the inherent difficulty of a query, and the interaction between the collections. Each collection was applied to aid in cohort retrieval from the Pittsburgh NLP Repository by using a mixture of relevance models. Measured by mean average precision, performance using any auxiliary resource (MAP=0.386 and above) is shown to improve over the baseline query likelihood model (MAP=0.373). Considering subsets of the Mayo Clinic collection, we found that after including 2.5 billion term instances, retrieval is not improved by adding more instances. However, adding the Mayo Clinic collection did improve performance significantly over any existing setup, with a system using all four auxiliary collections obtaining the best results (MAP=0.4223). Because optimal results in the mixture of relevance models would require selective sampling of the collections, the common sense approach of "use all available data" is inappropriate. However, we found that it was still beneficial to add the Mayo corpus to any mixture of relevance models. On the task of IR-based cohort identification, query expansion with the Mayo Clinic corpus resulted in consistent and significant improvements. As such, any IR query expansion with access to a large clinical corpus could benefit from the additional resource. Additionally, we have shown that more data is not necessarily better, implying that there is value in collection curation.
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.