ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2020
User-centered design of a web-based crowdsourcing-integrated semantic text annotation tool for building a mental health knowledge base.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enabling data linkages for rare diseases in a resilient environment with the SERDIF framework.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Digital Outreach Strategies for Collecting Smoking Data: Pragmatic Randomized Trial.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Follow-up Interactive Long-Term Expert Ranking (FILTER): a crowdsourcing platform to adjudicate risk for survivorship care.JAMIA open · 2021Article
- Upper limb rehabilitation system based on virtual reality for breast cancer patients: Development and usability study.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOne in five U.S. adults lives with some kind of mental health condition and 4.6% of all U.S. adults have a serious mental illness. The Internet has become the first place for these people to seek online mental health information for help. However, online mental health information is not well-organized and often of low quality. There have been efforts in building evidence-based mental health knowledgebases curated with information manually extracted from the high-quality scientific literature. Manual extraction is inefficient. Crowdsourcing can potentially be a low-cost mechanism to collect labeled data from non-expert laypeople. However, there is not an existing annotation tool integrated with popular crowdsourcing platforms to perform the information extraction tasks. In our previous work, we prototyped a Semantic Text Annotation Tool (STAT) to address this gap.
objectiveWe aimed to refine the STAT prototype (1) to improve its usability and (2) to enhance the crowdsourcing workflow efficiency to facilitate the construction of evidence-based mental health knowledgebase, following a user-centered design (UCD) approach.
methodsFollowing UCD principles, we conducted four design iterations to improve the initial STAT prototype. In the first two iterations, usability testing focus groups were conducted internally with 8 participants recruited from a convenient sample, and the usability was evaluated with a modified System Usability Scale (SUS). In the following two iterations, usability testing was conducted externally using the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. In each iteration, we summarized the usability testing results through thematic analysis, identified usability issues, and conducted a heuristic evaluation to map identified usability issues to Jakob Nielsen's usability heuristics. We collected suggested improvements in the usability testing sessions and enhanced STAT accordingly in the next UCD iteration. After four UCD iterations, we conducted a case study of the system on MTurk using mental health related scientific literature. We compared the performance of crowdsourcing workers with two expert annotators from two aspects: efficiency and quality.
resultsThe SUS score increased from 70.3 ± 12.5 to 81.1 ± 9.8 after the two internal UCD iterations as we improved STAT's functionality based on the suggested improvements. We then evaluated STAT externally through MTurk in the following two iterations. The SUS score decreased to 55.7 ± 20.1 in the third iteration, probably because of the complexity of the tasks. After further simplification of STAT and the annotation tasks with an improved annotation guideline, the SUS score increased to 73.8 ± 13.8 in the fourth iteration of UCD. In the evaluation case study, on average, the workers spent 125.5 ± 69.2 s on the onboarding tutorial and the crowdsourcing workers spent significantly less time on the annotation tasks compared to the two experts. In terms of annotation quality, the workers' annotation results achieved average F1-scores ranged from 0.62 to 0.84 for the different sentences.
conclusionsWe successfully developed a web-based semantic text annotation tool, STAT, to facilitate the curation of semantic web knowledgebases through four UCD iterations. The lessons learned from the UCD process could serve as a guide to further enhance STAT and the development and design of other crowdsourcing-based semantic text annotation tasks. Our study also showed that a well-organized, informative annotation guideline is as important as the annotation tool itself. Further, we learned that a crowdsourcing task should consist of multiple simple microtasks rather than a complicated task.
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.