Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26734936›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Text Mining the History of Medicine.

Paul Thompson, Riza Theresa Batista-Navarro, Georgios Kontonatsios, Jacob Carter, Elizabeth Toon, John McNaught, Carsten Timmermann, Michael Worboys, Sophia Ananiadou

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Women's health inBMJ open · 2020
    Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Our journey to digital curation of the Jeghers Medical Index.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Text mining resources for the life sciences.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 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

9 authors.

Paul ThompsonNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Riza Theresa Batista-NavarroNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Georgios KontonatsiosNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Jacob CarterNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth ToonCentre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
John McNaughtNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Carsten TimmermannCentre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Michael WorboysCentre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Sophia AnaniadouNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historical text archives constitute a rich and diverse source of information, which is becoming increasingly readily accessible, due to large-scale digitisation efforts. However, it can be difficult for researchers to explore and search such large volumes of data in an efficient manner. Text mining (TM) methods can help, through their ability to recognise various types of semantic information automatically, e.g., instances of concepts (places, medical conditions, drugs, etc.), synonyms/variant forms of concepts, and relationships holding between concepts (which drugs are used to treat which medical conditions, etc.). TM analysis allows search systems to incorporate functionality such as automatic suggestions of synonyms of user-entered query terms, exploration of different concepts mentioned within search results or isolation of documents in which concepts are related in specific ways. However, applying TM methods to historical text can be challenging, according to differences and evolutions in vocabulary, terminology, language structure and style, compared to more modern text. In this article, we present our efforts to overcome the various challenges faced in the semantic analysis of published historical medical text dating back to the mid 19th century. Firstly, we used evidence from diverse historical medical documents from different periods to develop new resources that provide accounts of the multiple, evolving ways in which concepts, their variants and relationships amongst them may be expressed. These resources were employed to support the development of a modular processing pipeline of TM tools for the robust detection of semantic information in historical medical documents with varying characteristics. We applied the pipeline to two large-scale medical document archives covering wide temporal ranges as the basis for the development of a publicly accessible semantically-oriented search system. The novel resources are available for research purposes, while the processing pipeline and its modules may be used and configured within the Argo TM platform.

Indexed as

Data MiningHistory of MedicineHistory, 19th CenturySemantics

Identifiers

PMID26734936
PMCPMC4703377

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.