OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new system, ISAID (Internet-based Semi-automated Indexing of Documents), and to generate textbook indexes that are more detailed and more useful to readers. DESIGN: Pilot evaluation: simple, nonrandomized trial comparing ISAID with manual indexing methods. Methods evaluation: randomized, cross-over trial comparing three versions of ISAID and usability survey. PARTICIPANTS: Pilot evaluation: two physicians. Methods evaluation: twelve physicians, each of whom used three different versions of the system for a total of 36 indexing sessions. MEASUREMENTS: Total index term tuples generated per document per minute (TPM), with and without adjustment for concordance with other subjects; inter-indexer consistency; ratings of the usability of the ISAID indexing system. RESULTS: Compared with manual methods, ISAID decreased indexing times greatly. Using three versions of ISAID, inter-indexer consistency ranged from 15% to 65% with a mean of 41%, 31%, and 40% for each of three documents. Subjects using the full version of ISAID were faster (average TPM: 5.6) and had higher rates of concordant index generation. There were substantial learning effects, despite our use of a training/run-in phase. Subjects using the full version of ISAID were much faster by the third indexing session (average TPM: 9.1). There was a statistically significant increase in three-subject concordant indexing rate using the full version of ISAID during the second indexing session (p < 0.05). SUMMARY: Users of the ISAID indexing system create complex, precise, and accurate indexing for full-text documents much faster than users of manual methods. Furthermore, the natural language processing methods that ISAID uses to suggest indexes contributes substantially to increased indexing speed and accuracy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new system, ISAID (Internet-based Semi-automated Indexing of Documents), and to generate textbook indexes that are more detailed and more useful to readers. DESIGN: Pilot evaluation: simple, nonrandomized trial comparing ISAID with manual indexing methods. Methods evaluation: randomized, cross-over trial comparing three versions of ISAID and usability survey. PARTICIPANTS: Pilot evaluation: two physicians. Methods evaluation: twelve physicians, each of whom used three different versions of the system for a total of 36 indexing sessions. MEASUREMENTS: Total index term tuples generated per document per minute (TPM), with and without adjustment for concordance with other subjects; inter-indexer consistency; ratings of the usability of the ISAID indexing system. RESULTS: Compared with manual methods, ISAID decreased indexing times greatly. Using three versions of ISAID, inter-indexer consistency ranged from 15% to 65% with a mean of 41%, 31%, and 40% for each of three documents. Subjects using the full version of ISAID were faster (average TPM: 5.6) and had higher rates of concordant index generation. There were substantial learning effects, despite our use of a training/run-in phase. Subjects using the full version of ISAID were much faster by the third indexing session (average TPM: 9.1). There was a statistically significant increase in three-subject concordant indexing rate using the full version of ISAID during the second indexing session (p < 0.05). SUMMARY: Users of the ISAID indexing system create complex, precise, and accurate indexing for full-text documents much faster than users of manual methods. Furthermore, the natural language processing methods that ISAID uses to suggest indexes contributes substantially to increased indexing speed and accuracy.
Authors: M S Tuttle; N E Olson; K D Keck; W G Cole; M S Erlbaum; D D Sherertz; C G Chute; P L Elkin; G E Atkin; B H Kaihoi; C Safran; D Rind; V Law Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Chunhua Weng; Xiaoying Wu; Zhihui Luo; Mary Regina Boland; Dimitri Theodoratos; Stephen B Johnson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-07-31 Impact factor: 4.497