ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020
Better synonyms for enriching biomedical search.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subset selection based fusion for biomedical information retrieval tasks.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Predicting drug-gene relations via analogy tasks with word embeddings.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reviewing knowledgebase and database grant proposals in the life sciences: the role of innovation.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
- Literature search: Simple rules for confronting theMedical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Review
- Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information.Nucleic acids research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn a biomedical literature search, the link between a query and a document is often not established, because they use different terms to refer to the same concept. Distributional word embeddings are frequently used for detecting related words by computing the cosine similarity between them. However, previous research has not established either the best embedding methods for detecting synonyms among related word pairs or how effective such methods may be. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, we first create the BioSearchSyn set, a manually annotated set of synonyms, to assess and compare 3 widely used word-embedding methods (word2vec, fastText, and GloVe) in their ability to detect synonyms among related pairs of words. We demonstrate the shortcomings of the cosine similarity score between word embeddings for this task: the same scores have very different meanings for the different methods. To address the problem, we propose utilizing pool adjacent violators (PAV), an isotonic regression algorithm, to transform a cosine similarity into a probability of 2 words being synonyms.
resultsExperimental results using the BioSearchSyn set as a gold standard reveal which embedding methods have the best performance in identifying synonym pairs. The BioSearchSyn set also allows converting cosine similarity scores into probabilities, which provides a uniform interpretation of the synonymy score over different methods.
conclusionsWe introduced the BioSearchSyn corpus of 1000 term pairs, which allowed us to identify the best embedding method for detecting synonymy for biomedical search. Using the proposed method, we created PubTermVariants2.0: a large, automatically extracted set of synonym pairs that have augmented PubMed searches since the spring of 2019.
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.