ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2016
DREAM: Classification scheme for dialog acts in clinical research query mediation.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2016. 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.
- Clinical Research Informatics for Big Data and Precision Medicine.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Article
- A multi-site cognitive task analysis for biomedical query mediation.International journal of medical informatics · 2016Article
- Leveraging dialog systems research to assist biomedical researchers' interrogation of Big Clinical Data.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical data access involves complex but opaque communication between medical researchers and query analysts. Understanding such communication is indispensable for designing intelligent human-machine dialog systems that automate query formulation. This study investigates email communication and proposes a novel scheme for classifying dialog acts in clinical research query mediation. We analyzed 315 email messages exchanged in the communication for 20 data requests obtained from three institutions. The messages were segmented into 1333 utterance units. Through a rigorous process, we developed a classification scheme and applied it for dialog act annotation of the extracted utterances. Evaluation results with high inter-annotator agreement demonstrate the reliability of this scheme. This dataset is used to contribute preliminary understanding of dialog acts distribution and conversation flow in this dialog space.
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.