ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2015
Concept selection for phenotypes and diseases using learn to rank.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodologically grounded semantic analysis of large volume of chilean medical literature data applied to the analysis of medical research funding efficiency in Chile.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2020Article
- Annotating and detecting phenotypic information for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.JAMIA open · 2019Article
- Automated, Efficient, and Accelerated Knowledge Modeling of the Cognitive Neuroimaging Literature Using the ATHENA Toolkit.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Improving the dictionary lookup approach for disease normalization using enhanced dictionary and query expansion.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016Article
- Mapping Phenotypic Information in Heterogeneous Textual Sources to a Domain-Specific Terminological Resource.PloS one · 2016Article
- Special issue on bio-ontologies and phenotypes.Journal of biomedical semantics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhenotypes form the basis for determining the existence of a disease against the given evidence. Much of this evidence though remains locked away in text - scientific articles, clinical trial reports and electronic patient records (EPR) - where authors use the full expressivity of human language to report their observations.
resultsIn this paper we exploit a combination of off-the-shelf tools for extracting a machine understandable representation of phenotypes and other related concepts that concern the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. These are tested against a gold standard EPR collection that has been annotated with Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) concept identifiers: the ShARE/CLEF 2013 corpus for disorder detection. We evaluate four pipelines as stand-alone systems and then attempt to optimise semantic-type based performance using several learn-to-rank (LTR) approaches - three pairwise and one listwise. We observed that whilst overall Apache cTAKES tended to outperform other stand-alone systems on a strong recall (R = 0.57), precision was low (P = 0.09) leading to low-to-moderate F1 measure (F1 = 0.16). Moreover, there is substantial variation in system performance across semantic types for disorders. For example, the concept Findings (T033) seemed to be very challenging for all systems. Combining systems within LTR improved F1 substantially (F1 = 0.24) particularly for Disease or syndrome (T047) and Anatomical abnormality (T190). Whilst recall is improved markedly, precision remains a challenge (P = 0.15, R = 0.59).
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.