Trial reportJournal of biomedical informatics2019
Alternative classification of identical concepts in different terminologies: Different ways to view the world.
Trial report in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extending import detection algorithms for concept import from two to three biomedical terminologies.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- A review of auditing techniques for the Unified Medical Language System.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In previous research, we have studied concepts that occur in pairs of medical terminologies and are known to be identical, because they have the same ID number in the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). We observed that such concepts rarely have exactly the same sets of children (=subconcepts) in the two terminologies. The number of common children was found to vary widely. A special situation was identified where the children in one terminology relate to the common parent in a very different way than the children in the other terminology. For example, children in one terminology might subdivide a parent concept by anatomical location in one terminology and by disease kind in the other terminology. We coined the term "alternative classification" (of the same parent concept) for such situations. In previous work, only human experts could recognize alternative classifications. In this paper, we present a mathematically expressed criterion for likely cases of alternative classifications. We compare the recommendations of this criterion, expressed by a mathematical quantity called "EFI" becoming zero, with the decisions of a human expert. It is found that the human expert agreed with the criterion in 72% of all cases, which is a big improvement over having no computable criterion at all. Besides alternative classifications, common parent concepts in a pair of terminologies might also indicate a possible import of a child concept missing in one terminology, different granularities, or errors in either one of the two terminologies. In this paper, we further investigate different kinds of alternative classifications.
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.