ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2018
Evaluating Casama: Contextualized semantic maps for summarization of lung cancer studies.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIt is crucial for clinicians to stay up to date on current literature in order to apply recent evidence to clinical decision making. Automatic summarization systems can help clinicians quickly view an aggregated summary of literature on a topic. Casama, a representation and summarization system based on "contextualized semantic maps," captures the findings of biomedical studies as well as the contexts associated with patient population and study design. This paper presents a user-oriented evaluation of Casama in comparison to a context-free representation, SemRep. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe effectiveness of the representation was evaluated by presenting users with manually annotated Casama and SemRep summaries of ten articles on driver mutations in cancer. Automatic annotations were evaluated on a collection of articles on EGFR mutation in lung cancer. Seven users completed a questionnaire rating the summarization quality for various topics and applications.
resultsCasama had higher median scores than SemRep for the majority of the topics (p≤ 0.00032), all of the applications (p≤ 0.00089), and in overall summarization quality (p≤ 1.5e-05). Casama's manual annotations outperformed Casama's automatic annotations (p = 0.00061). DISCUSSION: Casama performed particularly well in the representation of strength of evidence, which was highly rated both quantitatively and qualitatively. Users noted that Casama's less granular, more targeted representation improved usability compared to SemRep.
conclusionThis evaluation demonstrated the benefits of a contextualized representation for summarizing biomedical literature on cancer. Iteration on specific areas of Casama's representation, further development of its algorithms, and a clinically-oriented evaluation are warranted.
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.