Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25592675›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

Biomedical question answering using semantic relations.

Dimitar Hristovski, Dejan Dinevski, Andrej Kastrin, Thomas C Rindflesch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Question answering systems for health professionals at the point of care-a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Structured reviews for data and knowledge-driven research.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Qcorp: an annotated classification corpus of Chinese health questions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. MELODI: Mining Enriched Literature Objects to Derive Intermediates.International journal of epidemiology · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Automated identification of molecular effects of drugs (AIMED).Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Resource Classification for Medical Questions.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2016
    Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

4 authors.

Dimitar HristovskiInstitute for Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Vrazov trg 2, SI-1104, Ljubljana, Slovenia. dimitar.hristovski@mf.uni-lj.si.
Dejan DinevskiFaculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Slomškov trg 15, SI-2000, Maribor, Slovenia. dejan.dinevski@um.si.
Andrej KastrinFaculty of Information Studies, Ulica talcev 3, SI-8000, Novo mesto, Slovenia. andrej.kastrin@guest.arnes.si.
Thomas C RindfleschLister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, 20894, USA. trindflesch@mail.nih.gov.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe proliferation of the scientific literature in the field of biomedicine makes it difficult to keep abreast of current knowledge, even for domain experts. While general Web search engines and specialized information retrieval (IR) systems have made important strides in recent decades, the problem of accurate knowledge extraction from the biomedical literature is far from solved. Classical IR systems usually return a list of documents that have to be read by the user to extract relevant information. This tedious and time-consuming work can be lessened with automatic Question Answering (QA) systems, which aim to provide users with direct and precise answers to their questions. In this work we propose a novel methodology for QA based on semantic relations extracted from the biomedical literature.

resultsWe extracted semantic relations with the SemRep natural language processing system from 122,421,765 sentences, which came from 21,014,382 MEDLINE citations (i.e., the complete MEDLINE distribution up to the end of 2012). A total of 58,879,300 semantic relation instances were extracted and organized in a relational database. The QA process is implemented as a search in this database, which is accessed through a Web-based application, called SemBT (available at http://sembt.mf.uni-lj.si ). We conducted an extensive evaluation of the proposed methodology in order to estimate the accuracy of extracting a particular semantic relation from a particular sentence. Evaluation was performed by 80 domain experts. In total 7,510 semantic relation instances belonging to 2,675 distinct relations were evaluated 12,083 times. The instances were evaluated as correct 8,228 times (68%).

conclusionsIn this work we propose an innovative methodology for biomedical QA. The system is implemented as a Web-based application that is able to provide precise answers to a wide range of questions. A typical question is answered within a few seconds. The tool has some extensions that make it especially useful for interpretation of DNA microarray results.

Indexed as

Abstracting and IndexingAlgorithmsInformation Storage and RetrievalNatural Language ProcessingOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSemanticsSoftwareDatabases, FactualHumansPharmacogenetics

Identifiers

PMID25592675
PMCPMC4307891

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.