Literature DB >> 28269949

Improving Endpoint Detection to Support Automated Systematic Reviews.

Ana Lucic1, Catherine L Blake1.   

Abstract

Authors of biomedical articles use comparison sentences to communicate the findings of a study, and to compare the results of the current study with earlier studies. The Claim Framework defines a comparison claim as a sentence that includes at least two entities that are being compared, and an endpoint that captures the way in which the entities are compared. Although automated methods have been developed to identify comparison sentences from the text, identifying the role that a specific noun plays (i.e. entity or endpoint) is much more difficult. Automated methods have been successful at identifying the second entity, but classification models were unable to clearly differentiate between the first entity and the endpoint. We show empirically that establishing if head noun is an amount or measure provides a statistically significant improvement that increases the endpoint precision from 0.42 to 0.56 on longer and from 0.51 to 0.58 on shorter sentences and recall from 0.64 to 0.71 on longer and from 0.69 to 0.74 on shorter sentences. The differences were not statistically significant for the second compared entity.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28269949      PMCID: PMC5333237     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc        ISSN: 1559-4076


  13 in total

1.  A study of biomedical concept identification: MetaMap vs. people.

Authors:  Wanda Pratt; Meliha Yetisgen-Yildiz
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2003

2.  Reducing workload in systematic review preparation using automated citation classification.

Authors:  A M Cohen; W R Hersh; K Peterson; Po-Yin Yen
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Towards automatic recognition of scientifically rigorous clinical research evidence.

Authors:  Halil Kilicoglu; Dina Demner-Fushman; Thomas C Rindflesch; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-10-24       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Cross-topic learning for work prioritization in systematic review creation and update.

Authors:  Aaron M Cohen; Kyle Ambert; Marian McDonagh
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Automatic endpoint detection to support the systematic review process.

Authors:  Catherine Blake; Ana Lucic
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 6.  The efficacy and safety of DPP4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Basem M Mishriky; Doyle M Cummings; Robert J Tanenberg
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 5.602

7.  Mechanisms in biomedical ontology.

Authors:  Johannes Röhl
Journal:  J Biomed Semantics       Date:  2012-09-21

Review 8.  Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality.

Authors:  Sarah Donegan; Paula Williamson; Carrol Gamble; Catrin Tudur-Smith
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Tools for Identifying Reliable Evidence and Implementing it in Everyday Clinical Care.

Authors:  Aaron M Cohen; Dina Demner-Fushman; Alfonso Iorio; Ida Sim; Neil R Smalheiser
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2013-03-18
View more
  2 in total

1.  Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: A living systematic review.

Authors:  Lena Schmidt; Babatunde K Olorisade; Luke A McGuinness; James Thomas; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2021-05-19

2.  Using semantics to scale up evidence-based chemical risk-assessments.

Authors:  Catherine Blake; Jodi A Flaws
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.