ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Validating the representation of distance between infarct diseases using word embedding.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe pivot and cluster strategy (PCS) is a diagnostic reasoning strategy that automatically elicits disease clusters similar to a differential diagnosis in a batch. Although physicians know empirically which disease clusters are similar, there has been no quantitative evaluation. This study aimed to determine whether inter-disease distances between word embedding vectors using the PCS are a valid quantitative representation of similar disease groups in a limited domain.
methodsAbstracts were extracted from the Ichushi Web database and subjected to morphological analysis and training using Word2Vec, FastText, and GloVe. Consequently, word embedding vectors were obtained. For words including "infarction," we calculated the cophenetic correlation coefficient (CCC) as an internal validity measure and the adjusted rand index (ARI), normalized mutual information (NMI), and adjusted mutual information (AMI) with ICD-10 codes as the external validity measures. This was performed for each combination of metric and hierarchical clustering method.
resultsSeventy-one words included "infarction," of which 38 diseases matched the ICD-10 standard with the appearance of 21 unique ICD-10 codes. When using Word2Vec, the CCC was most significant at 0.8690 (metric and method: euclidean and centroid), whereas the AMI was maximal at 0.4109 (metric and method: cosine and correlation, and average and weighted). The NMI and ARI were maximal at 0.8463 and 0.3593, respectively (metric and method: cosine and complete). FastText and GloVe generally resulted in the same trend as Word2Vec, and the metric and method that maximized CCC differed from the ones that maximized the external validity measures.
conclusionsThe metric and method that maximized the internal validity measure differed from those that maximized the external validity measures; both produced different results. The cosine distance should be used when considering ICD-10, and the Euclidean distance when considering the frequency of word occurrence. The distributed representation, when trained by Word2Vec on the "infarction" domain from a Japanese academic corpus, provides an objective inter-disease distance used in PCS.
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.