Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26774763›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2016

Classification of clinically useful sentences in clinical evidence resources.

Mohammad Amin Morid, Marcelo Fiszman, Kalpana Raja, Siddhartha R Jonnalagadda, Guilherme Del Fiol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Mining the literature for genes associated with placenta-mediated maternal diseases.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Classification of Clinically Useful Sentences in MEDLINE.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2015
    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

5 authors.

Mohammad Amin MoridDepartment of Operations and Information Systems, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Marcelo FiszmanLister Hill Center, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Kalpana RajaDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Division of Health and Biomedical Informatics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Siddhartha R JonnalagaddaDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Division of Health and Biomedical Informatics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Guilherme Del FiolDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: guilherme.delfiol@utah.edu.

Funding

Meeting Clinicians' Information Needs with Highly Tailored Knowledge SummariesR01LM011416 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DEL FIOL, GUILHERME · 2013 to 2016
$1.3M
Improving the Efficiency and Efficacy in Authoring Essential Clinical FAQsR00LM011389 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI JONNALAGADDA, SIDDHARTHA REDDY · 2013 to 2015
$665k
NLM NIH HHS 1R01LM011416-01NLM NIH HHS 4R00LM011389-02NLM NIH HHS R00 LM011389NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledMost patient care questions raised by clinicians can be answered by online clinical knowledge resources. However, important barriers still challenge the use of these resources at the point of care.

objectiveTo design and assess a method for extracting clinically useful sentences from synthesized online clinical resources that represent the most clinically useful information for directly answering clinicians' information needs. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe developed a Kernel-based Bayesian Network classification model based on different domain-specific feature types extracted from sentences in a gold standard composed of 18 UpToDate documents. These features included UMLS concepts and their semantic groups, semantic predications extracted by SemRep, patient population identified by a pattern-based natural language processing (NLP) algorithm, and cue words extracted by a feature selection technique. Algorithm performance was measured in terms of precision, recall, and F-measure.

resultsThe feature-rich approach yielded an F-measure of 74% versus 37% for a feature co-occurrence method (p<0.001). Excluding predication, population, semantic concept or text-based features reduced the F-measure to 62%, 66%, 58% and 69% respectively (p<0.01). The classifier applied to Medline sentences reached an F-measure of 73%, which is equivalent to the performance of the classifier on UpToDate sentences (p=0.62).

conclusionsThe feature-rich approach significantly outperformed general baseline methods. This approach significantly outperformed classifiers based on a single type of feature. Different types of semantic features provided a unique contribution to overall classification performance. The classifier's model and features used for UpToDate generalized well to Medline abstracts.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalSupervised Machine LearningAlgorithmsBayes TheoremHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalLanguageMEDLINENatural Language ProcessingSemanticsTerminology as TopicUnified Medical Language SystemClinical decision supportMachine learningNatural language processingText summarization

Identifiers

PMID26774763
PMCPMC4836984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.