Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33083825›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

Better synonyms for enriching biomedical search.

Lana Yeganova, Sun Kim, Qingyu Chen, Grigory Balasanov, W John Wilbur, Zhiyong Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reviewing knowledgebase and database grant proposals in the life sciences: the role of innovation.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022
    Article
  4. Literature search: Simple rules for confronting theMedical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022
    Review
  5. Review
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.

Lana YeganovaNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Sun KimNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Qingyu ChenNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Grigory BalasanovNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
W John WilburNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Zhiyong LuNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchLinguisticsPubMedAlgorithmsInformation Storage and RetrievalProbabilityTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID33083825
PMCPMC7727334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.