Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27488403›Full record

SynthesisYearbook of medical informatics2016

Progress in Biomedical Knowledge Discovery: A 25-year Retrospective.

L Sacchi, J H Holmes

Abstract readHistorical ArticleSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

L Sacchi
J H HolmesJohn H Holmes, Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 717 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA, Tel: 215-898-4833, Fax: 215-573-5325, E-Mail: jhholmes@mail.med.upenn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe sought to explore, via a systematic review of the literature, the state of the art of knowledge discovery in biomedical databases as it existed in 1992, and then now, 25 years later, mainly focused on supervised learning.

methodsWe performed a rigorous systematic search of PubMed and latent Dirichlet allocation to identify themes in the literature and trends in the science of knowledge discovery in and between time periods and compare these trends. We restricted the result set using a bracket of five years previous, such that the 1992 result set was restricted to articles published between 1987 and 1992, and the 2015 set between 2011 and 2015. This was to reflect the current literature available at the time to researchers and others at the target dates of 1992 and 2015. The search term was framed as: Knowledge Discovery OR Data Mining OR Pattern Discovery OR Pattern Recognition, Automated.

resultsA total 538 and 18,172 documents were retrieved for 1992 and 2015, respectively. The number and type of data sources increased dramatically over the observation period, primarily due to the advent of electronic clinical systems. The period 1992- 2015 saw the emergence of new areas of research in knowledge discovery, and the refinement and application of machine learning approaches that were nascent or unknown in 1992.

conclusionsOver the 25 years of the observation period, we identified numerous developments that impacted the science of knowledge discovery, including the availability of new forms of data, new machine learning algorithms, and new application domains. Through a bibliometric analysis we examine the striking changes in the availability of highly heterogeneous data resources, the evolution of new algorithmic approaches to knowledge discovery, and we consider from legal, social, and political perspectives possible explanations of the growth of the field. Finally, we reflect on the achievements of the past 25 years to consider what the next 25 years will bring with regard to the availability of even more complex data and to the methods that could be, and are being now developed for the discovery of new knowledge in biomedical data.

Indexed as

BibliometricsArtificial IntelligenceDatabases, FactualData MiningHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyMedical InformaticsAlgorithmsartificial intelligencedatabasesdata miningfactualknowledge discovery in databases

Identifiers

PMID27488403
PMCPMC5171499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.