Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33831536›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2021

A comparative analysis of system features used in the TREC-COVID information retrieval challenge.

Jimmy S Chen, William R Hersh

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Jimmy S ChenSchool of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: chenjim@ohsu.edu.
William R HershDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a rapidly growing quantity of scientific publications from journal articles, preprints, and other sources. The TREC-COVID Challenge was created to evaluate information retrieval (IR) methods and systems for this quickly expanding corpus. Using the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19), several dozen research teams participated in over 5 rounds of the TREC-COVID Challenge. While previous work has compared IR techniques used on other test collections, there are no studies that have analyzed the methods used by participants in the TREC-COVID Challenge. We manually reviewed team run reports from Rounds 2 and 5, extracted features from the documented methodologies, and used a univariate and multivariate regression-based analysis to identify features associated with higher retrieval performance. We observed that fine-tuning datasets with relevance judgments, MS-MARCO, and CORD-19 document vectors was associated with improved performance in Round 2 but not in Round 5. Though the relatively decreased heterogeneity of runs in Round 5 may explain the lack of significance in that round, fine-tuning has been found to improve search performance in previous challenge evaluations by improving a system's ability to map relevant queries and phrases to documents. Furthermore, term expansion was associated with improvement in system performance, and the use of the narrative field in the TREC-COVID topics was associated with decreased system performance in both rounds. These findings emphasize the need for clear queries in search. While our study has some limitations in its generalizability and scope of techniques analyzed, we identified some IR techniques that may be useful in building search systems for COVID-19 using the TREC-COVID test collections.

Indexed as

COVID-19Information Storage and RetrievalPandemicsHumansMultivariate AnalysisSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Information retrievalSearch systemsTaxonomyTREC-COVID

Identifiers

PMID33831536
PMCPMC8021447

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.