emnlp emnlp2010 emnlp2010-90 emnlp2010-90-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Florian Boudin ; Jian-Yun Nie ; Martin Dawes
Abstract: The PECO framework is a knowledge representation for formulating clinical questions. Queries are decomposed into four aspects, which are Patient-Problem (P), Exposure (E), Comparison (C) and Outcome (O). However, no test collection is available to evaluate such framework in information retrieval. In this work, we first present the construction of a large test collection extracted from systematic literature reviews. We then describe an analysis of the distribution of PECO elements throughout the relevant documents and propose a language modeling approach that uses these distributions as a weighting strategy. In our experiments carried out on a collection of 1.5 million documents and 423 queries, our method was found to lead to an improvement of 28% in MAP and 50% in P@5, as com- pared to the state-of-the-art method.
Florian Boudin, Jian-Yun Nie, and Martin Dawes. 2010a. Clinical Information Retrieval using Document and PICO Structure. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 2010 conference, pages 822–830. Florian Boudin, Lixin Shi, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2010b. Improving Medical Information Retrieval with PICO Element Detection. In Proceedings of the ECIR 2010 conference, pages 50–61 . Grace Y. Chung. 2009. Sentence retrieval for abstracts of randomized controlled trials. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 9(1). Thomas Owens Sheri Keitz Connie Schardt, Martha B Adams and Paul Fontelo. 2007. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 7(1). Martin Dawes, Pierre Pluye, Laura Shea, Roland Grad, Arlene Greenberg, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2007. The iden115 tification of clinically important elements within medical journal abstracts: PatientPopulationProblem, ExposureIntervention, Comparison, Outcome, Duration and Results (PECODR). Informatics in Primary care, 15(1):9–16. D. Demner-Fushman and J. Lin. 2007. Answering clinical questions with knowledge-based and statistical techniques. Computational Linguistics, 33(1):63–103. William R. Hersh, Katherine Crabtree, David H. Hickam, Lynetta Sacherek, Linda Rose, and Charles P. Friedman. 2000. Factors associated with successful answering of clinical questions using an information retrieval system. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88(4):323–331. Larry McKnight and Padmini Srinivasan. 2003. Categorization of sentence types in medical abstracts. Proceedings of the AMIA annual symposium. Donald Metzler and W. Bruce Croft. 2005. A Markov random field model for term dependencies. In Proceedings of the SIGIR conference, pages 472–479. Yun Niu, Graeme Hirst, Gregory McArthur, and Patricia Rodriguez-Gianolli. 2003. Answering clinical questions with role identification. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Workshop on Natural Language Processing in Biomedicine, pages 73–80. Pierre Pluye, Roland M. Grad, Lynn G. Dunikowski, and Randolph Stephenson. 2005. Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: a literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 74(9):745–768. Jay M. Ponte and W. Bruce Croft. 1998. A language modeling approach to information retrieval. In Proceedings of the SIGIR conference, pages 275–281 . Scott W. Richardson, Mark C. Wilson, Jim Nishikawa, and Robert S. Hayward. 1995. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123(3):A12–13. David L. Sackett, William Rosenberg, J. A. Muir Gray, Brian Haynes, and W. Scott Richardson. 1996. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. British medical journal, 3 12:71–72.