Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32496201›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Identification of the Best Semantic Expansion to Query PubMed Through Automatic Performance Assessment of Four Search Strategies on All Medical Subject Heading Descriptors: Comparative Study.

Clément R Massonnaud, Gaétan Kerdelhué, Julien Grosjean, Romain Lelong, Nicolas Griffon, Stefan J Darmoni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. 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. 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

6 authors.

Clément R MassonnaudDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0292-9668
Gaétan KerdelhuéDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5803-5554
Julien GrosjeanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7446-644X
Romain LelongDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1865-8786
Nicolas GriffonDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9602-6429
Stefan J DarmoniDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7162-318X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the continuous expansion of available biomedical data, efficient and effective information retrieval has become of utmost importance. Semantic expansion of queries using synonyms may improve information retrieval.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to automatically construct and evaluate expanded PubMed queries of the form "preferred term"[MH] OR "preferred term"[TIAB] OR "synonym 1"[TIAB] OR "synonym 2"[TIAB] OR …, for each of the 28,313 Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) descriptors, by using different semantic expansion strategies. We sought to propose an innovative method that could automatically evaluate these strategies, based on the three main metrics used in information science (precision, recall, and F-measure).

methodsThree semantic expansion strategies were assessed. They differed by the synonyms used to build the queries as follows: MeSH synonyms, Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) mappings, and custom mappings (Catalogue et Index des Sites Médicaux de langue Française [CISMeF]). The precision, recall, and F-measure metrics were automatically computed for the three strategies and for the standard automatic term mapping (ATM) of PubMed. The method to automatically compute the metrics involved computing the number of all relevant citations (A), using National Library of Medicine indexing as the gold standard ("preferred term"[MH]), the number of citations retrieved by the added terms ("synonym 1"[TIAB] OR "synonym 2"[TIAB] OR …) (B), and the number of relevant citations retrieved by the added terms (combining the previous two queries with an "AND" operator) (C). It was possible to programmatically compute the metrics for each strategy using each of the 28,313 MeSH descriptors as a "preferred term," corresponding to 239,724 different queries built and sent to the PubMed application program interface. The four search strategies were ranked and compared for each metric.

resultsATM had the worst performance for all three metrics among the four strategies. The MeSH strategy had the best mean precision (51%, SD 23%). The UMLS strategy had the best recall and F-measure (41%, SD 31% and 36%, SD 24%, respectively). CISMeF had the second best recall and F-measure (40%, SD 31% and 35%, SD 24%, respectively). However, considering a cutoff of 5%, CISMeF had better precision than UMLS for 1180 descriptors, better recall for 793 descriptors, and better F-measure for 678 descriptors.

conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of using semantic expansion strategies to improve information retrieval. However, the performances of a given strategy, relatively to another, varied greatly depending on the MeSH descriptor. These results confirm there is no ideal search strategy for all descriptors. Different semantic expansions should be used depending on the descriptor and the user's objectives. Thus, we developed an interface that allows users to input a descriptor and then proposes the best semantic expansion to maximize the three main metrics (precision, recall, and F-measure).

Indexed as

bibliographic databaseinformation retrievalliterature searchMedical Subject HeadingsMEDLINEprecisionPubMedrecallsearch strategythesaurus

Identifiers

PMID32496201
PMCPMC7303830

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.