Dataset Information

Text summarization in the biomedical domain: a systematic review of recent research.

ABSTRACT: The amount of information for clinicians and clinical researchers is growing exponentially. Text summarization reduces information as an attempt to enable users to find and understand relevant source texts more quickly and effortlessly. In recent years, substantial research has been conducted to develop and evaluate various summarization techniques in the biomedical domain. The goal of this study was to systematically review recent published research on summarization of textual documents in the biomedical domain.MEDLINE (2000 to October 2013), IEEE Digital Library, and the ACM digital library were searched. Investigators independently screened and abstracted studies that examined text summarization techniques in the biomedical domain. Information is derived from selected articles on five dimensions: input, purpose, output, method and evaluation.Of 10,786 studies retrieved, 34 (0.3%) met the inclusion criteria. Natural language processing (17; 50%) and a hybrid technique comprising of statistical, Natural language processing and machine learning (15; 44%) were the most common summarization approaches. Most studies (28; 82%) conducted an intrinsic evaluation.This is the first systematic review of text summarization in the biomedical domain. The study identified research gaps and provides recommendations for guiding future research on biomedical text summarization.Recent research has focused on a hybrid technique comprising statistical, language processing and machine learning techniques. Further research is needed on the application and evaluation of text summarization in real research or patient care settings.

SUBMITTER: Mishra R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4261035 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Text summarization in the biomedical domain: a systematic review of recent research.

Mishra Rashmi R Bian Jiantao J Fiszman Marcelo M Weir Charlene R CR Jonnalagadda Siddhartha S Mostafa Javed J Del Fiol Guilherme G

Journal of biomedical informatics 20140710

<h4>Objective</h4>The amount of information for clinicians and clinical researchers is growing exponentially. Text summarization reduces information as an attempt to enable users to find and understand relevant source texts more quickly and effortlessly. In recent years, substantial research has been conducted to develop and evaluate various summarization techniques in the biomedical domain. The goal of this study was to systematically review recent published research on summarization of textual ...[more]

PMID: 25016293

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAutomatic text summarization (ATS) enables users to retrieve meaningful evidence from big data of biomedical repositories to make complex clinical decisions. Deep neural and recurrent networks outperform traditional machine-learning techniques in areas of natural language processing and computer vision; however, they are yet to be explored in the ATS domain, particularly for medical text summarization.ObjectiveTraditional approaches in ATS for biomedical text suffer from fundamental issues such as an inability to capture clinical context, quality of evidence, and purpose-driven selection of passages for the summary. We aimed to circumvent these limitations through achieving precise, succinct, and coherent information extraction from credible published biomedical resources, and to construct a simplified summary containing the most informative content that can offer a review particular to clinical needs.MethodsIn our proposed approach, we introduce a novel framework, termed Biomed-Summarizer, that provides quality-aware Patient/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO)-based intelligent and context-enabled summarization of biomedical text. Biomed-Summarizer integrates the prognosis quality recognition model with a clinical context-aware model to locate text sequences in the body of a biomedical article for use in the final summary. First, we developed a deep neural network binary classifier for quality recognition to acquire scientifically sound studies and filter out others. Second, we developed a bidirectional long-short term memory recurrent neural network as a clinical context-aware classifier, which was trained on semantically enriched features generated using a word-embedding tokenizer for identification of meaningful sentences representing PICO text sequences. Third, we calculated the similarity between query and PICO text sequences using Jaccard similarity with semantic enrichments, where the semantic enrichments are obtained using medical ontologies. Last, we generated a representative summary from the high-scoring PICO sequences aggregated by study type, publication credibility, and freshness score.ResultsEvaluation of the prognosis quality recognition model using a large dataset of biomedical literature related to intracranial aneurysm showed an accuracy of 95.41% (2562/2686) in terms of recognizing quality articles. The clinical context-aware multiclass classifier outperformed the traditional machine-learning algorithms, including support vector machine, gradient boosted tree, linear regression, K-nearest neighbor, and naïve Bayes, by achieving 93% (16127/17341) accuracy for classifying five categories: aim, population, intervention, results, and outcome. The semantic similarity algorithm achieved a significant Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.61 (0-1 scale) on a well-known BIOSSES dataset (with 100 pair sentences) after semantic enrichment, representing an improvement of 8.9% over baseline Jaccard similarity. Finally, we found a highly positive correlation among the evaluations performed by three domain experts concerning different metrics, suggesting that the automated summarization is satisfactory.ConclusionsBy employing the proposed method Biomed-Summarizer, high accuracy in ATS was achieved, enabling seamless curation of research evidence from the biomedical literature to use for clinical decision-making.

Project description:Computational methods have been used to find duplicate biomedical publications in MEDLINE. Full text articles are becoming increasingly available, yet the similarities among them have not been systematically studied. Here, we quantitatively investigated the full text similarity of biomedical publications in PubMed Central.72,011 full text articles from PubMed Central (PMC) were parsed to generate three different datasets: full texts, sections, and paragraphs. Text similarity comparisons were performed on these datasets using the text similarity algorithm eTBLAST. We measured the frequency of similar text pairs and compared it among different datasets. We found that high abstract similarity can be used to predict high full text similarity with a specificity of 20.1% (95% CI [17.3%, 23.1%]) and sensitivity of 99.999%. Abstract similarity and full text similarity have a moderate correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient: -0.423) when the similarity ratio is above 0.4. Among pairs of articles in PMC, method sections are found to be the most repetitive (frequency of similar pairs, methods: 0.029, introduction: 0.0076, results: 0.0043). In contrast, among a set of manually verified duplicate articles, results are the most repetitive sections (frequency of similar pairs, results: 0.94, methods: 0.89, introduction: 0.82). Repetition of introduction and methods sections is more likely to be committed by the same authors (odds of a highly similar pair having at least one shared author, introduction: 2.31, methods: 1.83, results: 1.03). There is also significantly more similarity in pairs of review articles than in pairs containing one review and one nonreview paper (frequency of similar pairs: 0.0167 and 0.0023, respectively).While quantifying abstract similarity is an effective approach for finding duplicate citations, a comprehensive full text analysis is necessary to uncover all potential duplicate citations in the scientific literature and is helpful when establishing ethical guidelines for scientific publications.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing need to evaluate the production and impact of medical research produced by institutions. Many indicators exist, yet we do not have enough information about their relevance. The objective of this systematic review was (1) to identify all the indicators that could be used to measure the output and outcome of medical research carried out in institutions and (2) enlist their methodology, use, positive and negative points.MethodologyWe have searched 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) using the following keywords: [Research outcome* OR research output* OR bibliometric* OR scientometric* OR scientific production] AND [indicator* OR index* OR evaluation OR metrics]. We included articles presenting, discussing or evaluating indicators measuring the scientific production of an institution. The search was conducted by two independent authors using a standardised data extraction form. For each indicator we extracted its definition, calculation, its rationale and its positive and negative points. In order to reduce bias, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent authors.FindingsWe included 76 articles. A total of 57 indicators were identified. We have classified those indicators into 6 categories: 9 indicators of research activity, 24 indicators of scientific production and impact, 5 indicators of collaboration, 7 indicators of industrial production, 4 indicators of dissemination, 8 indicators of health service impact. The most widely discussed and described is the h-index with 31 articles discussing it.DiscussionThe majority of indicators found are bibliometric indicators of scientific production and impact. Several indicators have been developed to improve the h-index. This indicator has also inspired the creation of two indicators to measure industrial production and collaboration. Several articles propose indicators measuring research impact without detailing a methodology for calculating them. Many bibliometric indicators identified have been created but have not been used or further discussed.

Project description:BackgroundDigital clinical measures collected via various digital sensing technologies such as smartphones, smartwatches, wearables, ingestibles, and implantables are increasingly used by individuals and clinicians to capture health outcomes or behavioral and physiological characteristics of individuals. Although academia is taking an active role in evaluating digital sensing products, academic contributions to advancing the safe, effective, ethical, and equitable use of digital clinical measures are poorly characterized.ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review to characterize the nature of academic research on digital clinical measures and to compare and contrast the types of sensors used and the sources of funding support for specific subareas of this research.MethodsWe conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles reporting US-led academic research on digital clinical measures between January 2019 and February 2021. We screened each publication against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and categorized research studies based on the types of academic research, sensors used, and funding sources. Finally, we compared and contrasted the funding support for these specific subareas of research and sensor types.ResultsThe search retrieved 4240 articles of interest. Following the screening, 295 articles remained for data extraction and categorization. The top five research subareas included operations research (research analysis; n=225, 76%), analytical validation (n=173, 59%), usability and utility (data visualization; n=123, 42%), verification (n=93, 32%), and clinical validation (n=83, 28%). The three most underrepresented areas of research into digital clinical measures were ethics (n=0, 0%), security (n=1, 0.5%), and data rights and governance (n=1, 0.5%). Movement and activity trackers were the most commonly studied sensor type, and physiological (mechanical) sensors were the least frequently studied. We found that government agencies are providing the most funding for research on digital clinical measures (n=192, 65%), followed by independent foundations (n=109, 37%) and industries (n=56, 19%), with the remaining 12% (n=36) of these studies completely unfunded.ConclusionsSpecific subareas of academic research related to digital clinical measures are not keeping pace with the rapid expansion and adoption of digital sensing products. An integrated and coordinated effort is required across academia, academic partners, and academic funders to establish the field of digital clinical measures as an evidence-based field worthy of our trust.

Dataset Information

Text summarization in the biomedical domain: a systematic review of recent research.

Publications

Text summarization in the biomedical domain: a systematic review of recent research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets