Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39831376›Full record

ArticleEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2025

Semantic search helper: A tool based on the use of embeddings in multi-item questionnaires as a harmonization opportunity for merging large datasets - A feasibility study.

Karl Gottfried, Karina Janson, Nathalie E Holz, Olaf Reis, Johannes Kornhuber, Anna Eichler, Tobias Banaschewski, Frauke Nees, IMAC-Mind Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. ItemComplex: A Python-based visualization framework for ex-post organization and integration of large language-based datasets.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    Article
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

9 authors.

Karl GottfriedInstitute of Applied Medical Informatics, University Hospital Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2100-3409
Karina JansonDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0902-0628
Nathalie E HolzDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Olaf ReisDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Neurology, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Rostock University Medical Centre, Rostock, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6480-6431
Johannes KornhuberDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8096-3987
Anna EichlerDepartment of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5584-0961
Tobias BanaschewskiDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4595-1144
Frauke NeesDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7796-8234
IMAC-Mind Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in natural language processing (NLP), particularly in language processing methods, have opened new avenues in semantic data analysis. A promising application of NLP is data harmonization in questionnaire-based cohort studies, where it can be used as an additional method, specifically when only different instruments are available for one construct as well as for the evaluation of potentially new construct-constellations. The present article therefore explores embedding models' potential to detect opportunities for semantic harmonization.

methodsUsing models like SBERT and OpenAI's ADA, we developed a prototype application ("Semantic Search Helper") to facilitate the harmonization process of detecting semantically similar items within extensive health-related datasets. The approach's feasibility and applicability were evaluated through a use case analysis involving data from four large cohort studies with heterogeneous data obtained with a different set of instruments for common constructs.

resultsWith the prototype, we effectively identified potential harmonization pairs, which significantly reduced manual evaluation efforts. Expert ratings of semantic similarity candidates showed high agreement with model-generated pairs, confirming the validity of our approach.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the potential of embeddings in matching semantic similarity as a promising add-on tool to assist harmonization processes of multiplex data sets and instruments but with similar content, within and across studies.

Indexed as

Datasets as TopicNatural Language ProcessingSemanticsFeasibility StudiesHumansSurveys and Questionnairesbig dataharmonizationnatural language processingquestionnairessemantic

Identifiers

PMID39831376
PMCPMC11795448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.