↓ Skip to main content

Automatic Decision Support for Clinical Diagnostic Literature Using Link Analysis in a Weighted Keyword Network

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Automatic Decision Support for Clinical Diagnostic Literature Using Link Analysis in a Weighted Keyword Network
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10916-017-0876-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuqing Li, Ying Sun, Dagobert Soergel

Abstract

We present a novel approach to recommending articles from the medical literature that support clinical diagnostic decision-making, giving detailed descriptions of the associated ideas and principles. The specific goal is to retrieve biomedical articles that help answer questions of a specified type about a particular case. Based on the filtered keywords, MeSH(Medical Subject Headings) lexicon and the automatically extracted acronyms, the relationship between keywords and articles was built. The paper gives a detailed description of the process of by which keywords were measured and relevant articles identified based on link analysis in a weighted keywords network. Some important challenges identified in this study include the extraction of diagnosis-related keywords and a collection of valid sentences based on the keyword co-occurrence analysis and existing descriptions of symptoms. All data were taken from medical articles provided in the TREC (Text Retrieval Conference) clinical decision support track 2015. Ten standard topics and one demonstration topic were tested. In each case, a maximum of five articles with the highest relevance were returned. The total user satisfaction of 3.98 was 33% higher than average. The results also suggested that the smaller the number of results, the higher the average satisfaction. However, a few shortcomings were also revealed since medical literature recommendation for clinical diagnostic decision support is so complex a topic that it cannot be fully addressed through the semantic information carried solely by keywords in existing descriptions of symptoms. Nevertheless, the fact that these articles are actually relevant will no doubt inspire future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 29%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 2 12%
Social Sciences 2 12%
Chemistry 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 11 65%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#819
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,332
of 441,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#22
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 441,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.