↓ Skip to main content

A formal concept analysis and semantic query expansion cooperation to refine health outcomes of interest

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A formal concept analysis and semantic query expansion cooperation to refine health outcomes of interest
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-15-s1-s8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier C Curé, Henri Maurer, Nigam H Shah, Paea Le Pendu

Abstract

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are frequently used by clinicians and researchers to search for, extract, and analyze groups of patients by defining Health Outcome of Interests (HOI). The definition of an HOI is generally considered a complex and time consuming task for health care professionals. In our clinical note-based pharmacovigilance research, we often operate upon potentially hundreds of ontologies at once, expand query inputs, and we also increase the search space over clinical text as well as structured data. Such a method implies to specify an initial set of seed concepts, which are based on concept unique identifiers. This paper presents a novel method based on Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) and Semantic Query Expansion (SQE) to assist the end-user in defining their seed queries and in refining the expanded search space that it encompasses. We evaluate our method over a gold-standard corpus from the 2008 i2b2 Obesity Challenge. This experimentation emphasizes positive results for sensitivity and specificity measures. Our new approach provides better recall with high precision of the obtained results. The most promising aspect of this approach consists in the discovery of positive results not present our Obesity NLP reference set. Together with a Web graphical user interface, our FCA and SQE cooperation end up being an efficient approach for refining health outcome of interest using plain terms. We consider that this approach can be extended to support other domains such as cohort building tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Engineering 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 29%
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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,758,492
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,500
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,034
of 266,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#35
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 266,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.