Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27884812›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2016

Consumers' Use of UMLS Concepts on Social Media: Diabetes-Related Textual Data Analysis in Blog and Social Q&A Sites.

Min Sook Park, Zhe He, Zhiwei Chen, Sanghee Oh, Jiang Bian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Analysis of Temporal Constraints in Qualitative Eligibility Criteria of Cancer Clinical Studies.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 2016
    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.

Min Sook ParkSchool of Information, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1870-3324
Zhe HeSchool of Information, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3608-0244
Zhiwei ChenDepartment of Computer Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6918-5993
Sanghee OhSchool of Information, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5956-7296
Jiang BianDepartment of Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2238-5429

Funding

Using social networks to map and evaluate team science across CTSA hubsUL1TR001427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MITCHELL, DUANE A. · 2015 to 2024
$37.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe widely known terminology gap between health professionals and health consumers hinders effective information seeking for consumers.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to better understand consumers' usage of medical concepts by evaluating the coverage of concepts and semantic types of the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) on diabetes-related postings in 2 types of social media: blogs and social question and answer (Q&A).

methodsWe collected 2 types of social media data: (1) a total of 3711 blogs tagged with "diabetes" on Tumblr posted between February and October 2015; and (2) a total of 58,422 questions and associated answers posted between 2009 and 2014 in the diabetes category of Yahoo! Answers. We analyzed the datasets using a widely adopted biomedical text processing framework Apache cTAKES and its extension YTEX. First, we applied the named entity recognition (NER) method implemented in YTEX to identify UMLS concepts in the datasets. We then analyzed the coverage and the popularity of concepts in the UMLS source vocabularies across the 2 datasets (ie, blogs and social Q&A). Further, we conducted a concept-level comparative coverage analysis between SNOMED Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) and Open-Access Collaborative Consumer Health Vocabulary (OAC CHV)-the top 2 UMLS source vocabularies that have the most coverage on our datasets. We also analyzed the UMLS semantic types that were frequently observed in our datasets.

resultsWe identified 2415 UMLS concepts from blog postings, 6452 UMLS concepts from social Q&A questions, and 10,378 UMLS concepts from the answers. The medical concepts identified in the blogs can be covered by 56 source vocabularies in the UMLS, while those in questions and answers can be covered by 58 source vocabularies. SNOMED CT was the dominant vocabulary in terms of coverage across all the datasets, ranging from 84.9% to 95.9%. It was followed by OAC CHV (between 73.5% and 80.0%) and Metathesaurus Names (MTH) (between 55.7% and 73.5%). All of the social media datasets shared frequent semantic types such as "Amino Acid, Peptide, or Protein," "Body Part, Organ, or Organ Component," and "Disease or Syndrome."

conclusionsAlthough the 3 social media datasets vary greatly in size, they exhibited similar conceptual coverage among UMLS source vocabularies and the identified concepts showed similar semantic type distributions. As such, concepts that are both frequently used by consumers and also found in professional vocabularies such as SNOMED CT can be suggested to OAC CHV to improve its coverage.

Indexed as

concept coverageconsumer health vocabularycontrolled vocabulary

Identifiers

PMID27884812
PMCPMC5146325

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.