Literature DB >> 25552941

Building a gold standard to construct search filters: a case study with biomarkers for oral cancer.

John J Frazier1, Corey D Stein1, Eugene Tseytlin1, Tanja Bekhuis1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To support clinical researchers, librarians and informationists may need search filters for particular tasks. Development of filters typically depends on a "gold standard" dataset. This paper describes generalizable methods for creating a gold standard to support future filter development and evaluation using oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) as a case study. OSCC is the most common malignancy affecting the oral cavity. Investigation of biomarkers with potential prognostic utility is an active area of research in OSCC. The methods discussed here should be useful for designing quality search filters in similar domains.
METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE for prognostic studies of OSCC, developed annotation guidelines for screeners, ran three calibration trials before annotating the remaining body of citations, and measured inter-annotator agreement (IAA).
RESULTS: We retrieved 1,818 citations. After calibration, we screened the remaining citations (n = 1,767; 97.2%); IAA was substantial (kappa = 0.76). The dataset has 497 (27.3%) citations representing OSCC studies of potential prognostic biomarkers.
CONCLUSIONS: The gold standard dataset is likely to be high quality and useful for future development and evaluation of filters for OSCC studies of potential prognostic biomarkers. IMPLICATIONS: The methodology we used is generalizable to other domains requiring a reference standard to evaluate the performance of search filters. A gold standard is essential because the labels regarding relevance enable computation of diagnostic metrics, such as sensitivity and specificity. Librarians and informationists with data analysis skills could contribute to developing gold standard datasets and subsequent filters tuned for their patrons' domains of interest.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25552941      PMCID: PMC4279929          DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc        ISSN: 1536-5050


  18 in total

1.  Response to Glanville et al.: How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on.

Authors:  Nancy L Wilczynski; K Ann McKibbon; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2007-04

2.  MEDLINE clinical queries are robust when searching in recent publishing years.

Authors:  Nancy L Wilczynski; K Ann McKibbon; Stephen D Walter; Amit X Garg; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Benchmarking biomedical publications worldwide.

Authors:  Marie-Christophe Boissier
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 7.580

4.  Comparative effectiveness research designs: an analysis of terms and coverage in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree.

Authors:  Tanja Bekhuis; Dina Demner-Fushman; Rebecca S Crowley
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2013-04

Review 5.  Building a personalized medicine infrastructure at a major cancer center.

Authors:  Funda Meric-Bernstam; Carol Farhangfar; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting.

Authors:  Lisa M McShane; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Search filters for finding prognostic and diagnostic prediction studies in Medline to enhance systematic reviews.

Authors:  Geert-Jan Geersing; Walter Bouwmeester; Peter Zuithoff; Rene Spijker; Mariska Leeflang; Karel G M Moons; Karel Moons
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Search filters to identify geriatric medicine in Medline.

Authors:  Esther M M van de Glind; Barbara C van Munster; René Spijker; Rob J P M Scholten; Lotty Hooft
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Sample size determination for bibliographic retrieval studies.

Authors:  Xiaomei Yao; Nancy L Wilczynski; Stephen D Walter; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2008-09-29       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  The implications of biomarker evidence for systematic reviews.

Authors:  Miew Keen Choong; Guy Tsafnat
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  3 in total

1.  Keywords, discoverability, and impact.

Authors:  Tanja Bekhuis
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2015-07

2.  A Deep Learning Approach to Refine the Identification of High-Quality Clinical Research Articles From the Biomedical Literature: Protocol for Algorithm Development and Validation.

Authors:  Sophia Ananiadou; Wael Abdelkader; Tamara Navarro; Rick Parrish; Chris Cotoi; Federico Germini; Lori-Ann Linkins; Alfonso Iorio; R Brian Haynes; Lingyang Chu; Cynthia Lokker
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2021-11-29

Review 3.  Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

Authors:  Angela J Spencer; Jonathan D Eldredge
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2018-01-02
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.