↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Negation and Uncertainty Detection and its Impact on Precision and Recall in Search

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Evaluation of Negation and Uncertainty Detection and its Impact on Precision and Recall in Search
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, November 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10278-009-9250-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew S. Wu, Bao H. Do, Jinsuh Kim, Daniel L. Rubin

Abstract

Radiology reports contain information that can be mined using a search engine for teaching, research, and quality assurance purposes. Current search engines look for exact matches to the search term, but they do not differentiate between reports in which the search term appears in a positive context (i.e., being present) from those in which the search term appears in the context of negation and uncertainty. We describe RadReportMiner, a context-aware search engine, and compare its retrieval performance with a generic search engine, Google Desktop. We created a corpus of 464 radiology reports which described at least one of five findings (appendicitis, hydronephrosis, fracture, optic neuritis, and pneumonia). Each report was classified by a radiologist as positive (finding described to be present) or negative (finding described to be absent or uncertain). The same reports were then classified by RadReportMiner and Google Desktop. RadReportMiner achieved a higher precision (81%), compared with Google Desktop (27%; p < 0.0001). RadReportMiner had a lower recall (72%) compared with Google Desktop (87%; p = 0.006). We conclude that adding negation and uncertainty identification to a word-based radiology report search engine improves the precision of search results over a search engine that does not take this information into account. Our approach may be useful to adopt into current report retrieval systems to help radiologists to more accurately search for radiology reports.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
Spain 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 44 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 13 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 19 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,408,141
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#337
of 1,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,498
of 93,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,042 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 93,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.