MEDRank: using graph-based concept ranking to index biomedical texts.
MEDRank: using graph-based concept ranking to index biomedical texts.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.02.008
复制
发表时间：
2011-06
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Bernstam, Elmer V.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Herskovic, Jorge R.;Cohen, Trevor;Subramanian, Devika;Iyengar, M. Sriram;Smith, Jack W.;Bernstam, Elmer V.
关键词：
随着生物医学文本的数量呈指数增长，自动标引变得越来越重要。然而，现有的方法没有区分中心(或核心)概念和顺便提到的概念。我们专注于MEDLINE记录的索引问题，这是一个目前由国家医学图书馆(NLM)训练有素的人执行的过程。NLM索引器由一个名为医学文本索引器(MTI)的系统辅助，该系统建议候选索引词。提高MTI在MEDLINE摘要中选择核心术语的能力。这些核心概念被认为是最重要的，被MEDLINE索引者指定为“主要标题”。我们介绍和评估了一种称为MEDRank的基于图的索引方法，该方法从生物医学文本生成概念图，然后对这些图中的概念进行排序，以确定最重要的概念。我们将MEDRank步骤插入MTI，并将MTI的输出与MEDLINE索引器为11,803篇PubMed Central文章样本选择的术语进行比较。我们还测试了人类评分者是否更喜欢MEDLINE索引器生成的术语，没有MEDRank的MTI，以及有MEDRank的MTI，以36篇PubMed Central文章为样本。与没有MEDRank的MTI相比，MEDRank对指定的主要标题的召回率提高了30%(0.489比0.376)。总体召回仅略高(6.5%)(0.490比0.460)，F2(3%，0.408比0.396)也是如此。然而，总体精确度下降了3.9%(0.268比0.279)。人类评价者更喜欢使用MEDRank的MTI生成的术语，而不是没有MEDRank的MTI生成的术语(平均每篇多1.00个术语)，以及使用MEDRank和MEDLINE索引器的MTI以相同的速度生成的首选术语。与没有加入MEDRank的MTI相比，加入了MEDRank的MTI显著提高了对MEDLINE摘要中核心概念的检索，并且更符合人类的期望。此外，MEDRank还略微改善了整体召回和F2。
As the volume of biomedical text increases exponentially, automatic indexing becomes increasingly important. However, existing approaches do not distinguish central (or core) concepts from concepts that were mentioned in passing. We focus on the problem of indexing MEDLINE records, a process that is currently performed by highly-trained humans at the National Library of Medicine (NLM). NLM indexers are assisted by a system called the Medical Text Indexer (MTI) that suggests candidate indexing terms. To improve the ability of MTI to select the core terms in MEDLINE abstracts. These core concepts are deemed to be most important and are designated as “major headings” by MEDLINE indexers. We introduce and evaluate a graph-based indexing methodology called MEDRank that generates concept graphs from biomedical text and then ranks the concepts within these graphs to identify the most important ones. We insert a MEDRank step into the MTI and compare MTI’s output with and without MEDRank to the MEDLINE indexers’ selected terms for a sample of 11,803 PubMed Central articles. We also tested whether human raters prefer terms generated by the MEDLINE indexers, MTI without MEDRank, and MTI with MEDRank for a sample of 36 PubMed Central articles. MEDRank improved recall of major headings designated by 30% over MTI without MEDRank (0.489 vs 0.376). Overall recall was only slightly (6.5%) higher (0.490 vs 0.460) as was F2 (3%, 0.408 vs 0.396). However, overall precision was 3.9% lower (0.268 vs 0.279). Human raters preferred terms generated by MTI with MEDRank over terms generated by MTI without MEDRank (by an average of 1.00 more term per article), and preferred terms generated by MTI with MEDRank and the MEDLINE indexers at the same rate. The addition of MEDRank to MTI significantly improved the retrieval of core concepts in MEDLINE abstracts and more closely matched human expectations compared to MTI without MEDRank. In addition, MEDRank slightly improved overall recall and F2.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Cohen T;Widdows D
通讯作者：
Widdows D
DOI：
10.1197/jamia.m1909
发表时间：
2006-01-01
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Bernstam, EV;Herskovic, JR;Hersh, WR
通讯作者：
Hersh, WR
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Pedersen, Ted;Pakhomov, Serguei V. S.;Chute, Christopher G.
通讯作者：
Chute, Christopher G.
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Névéol A;Shooshan SE;Humphrey SM;Mork JG;Aronson AR
通讯作者：
Aronson AR
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Suppe, F
通讯作者：
Suppe, F