PubMed · 10124859
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
C D Benjamin, B H Baum. 1993. Testing coding skills as a pre-employment screening process.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10124859/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The authors have been conducting text mining analyses (extraction of useful information from text) of Medline records, using Abstracts as the main data source. For literature-based discovery, and other text mining applications as well, all records in a discipline need to be evaluated for determining prior art. Many Medline records do not contain Abstracts, but typically contain Titles and Mesh terms. Substitution of these fields for Abstracts in the non-Abstract records would restore the missing literature to some degree. OBJECTIVES: Determine how well the information content of Title and Mesh fields approximates that of Abstracts in Medline records. APPROACH: Select historical Medline records related to Raynaud's Phenomenon that contain Abstracts. Determine the information content in the Abstract fields through text mining. Then, determine the information content in the Title fields, the Mesh fields, and the combined Title-Mesh fields, and compare with the information content in the Abstracts. RESULTS: Four metrics were used to compare the information content related to Raynaud's Phenomenon in the different fields: total number of phrases; number of unique phrases; content of factors from factor analyses; content of clusters from multi-link clustering. The Abstract field contains almost an order of magnitude more phrases than the other fields, and slightly more than an order of magnitude more unique phrases than the other fields. Each field used a factor matrix with 14 factors, and the combination of all 56 factors for the four fields represented 27 separate, but not unique, themes. These themes could be placed in two major categories, with two sub-categories per major category: Auto-immunity (antibodies, inflammation) and circulation (peripheral vessel circulation, coronary vessel circulation). All four sub-categories included representation from each field. Thus, while the focus of the representation of each field in each sub-category was moderately different, the four sub-category structure could be identified by analyzing the total factors in each field. In the cluster comparison phase of the study, the phrases used to create the clusters were the most important phrases identified for each factor. Thus, the factor matrix served as a filter for words used for clustering. While clusters were generated for all four fields, the Title hierarchy tended to be fragmented due to sparsity of the co-occurrence matrix that underlies the clusters. Therefore, the Title clusters were examined at only the lower levels of aggregation. The Abstract, Mesh, and Mesh + Title fields had the same first level taxonomy categories, auto-immunity and circulation. At the second level, the Abstract, Mesh, and Mesh + Title fields had the autoimmune diseases and antibodies sub-category in common. The Abstract and Mesh fields shared fascia inflammation as the other auto-immunity sub-category, while the other Mesh + Title sub-category focuses on vinyl chloride poisoning from industrial contact, and consequences of antineoplastic agents. However, in both cases, even though the words may be different, inflammation may be the common theme. CONCLUSIONS: For taxonomy generation, especially at the higher levels, each of the four fields has a similar thematic structure. At very detailed levels, the Mesh and Title fields run out of phrases relative to the Abstract field. Therefore, selection of field (s) to be employed for taxonomy generation depends on the objectives of the study, particularly the level of categorization required for the taxonomy. For information retrieval, or literature-based discovery, selection of the appropriate field again depends on the study objectives. If large queries, or large numbers of concepts or themes are desired, then the field with the largest number of technical phrases would be desirable. If queries or concepts represented by the more accepted popular terminology is adequate, then the smaller fields may be sufficient. Because of its established and controlled vocabulary, the Mesh field lags the Title or Abss the Title or Abstract fields in currency. Thus, the Title or Abstract fields would retrieve records with the most explicitly stated current concepts, but the Mesh field would capture a larger swath of fields that contained a concept of interest but perhaps had a wider range of specific terminology in the Abstract or Title text. In addition, this study provides the first validated estimate of the disparity in information retrieved through text mining limited to Titles and Mesh terms relative to entire Abstracts. As much of the older biomedical literature was entered into electronic databases without associated Abstracts, literature-based discovery exercises that search the older medical literature may miss a substantial proportion of relevant information. On the basis of this study, it may be estimated that up to a log order more information may be retrieved when complete Abstracts are searched.
BACKGROUND: Concept indexing is a popular method for characterizing medical text, and is one of the most important early steps in many data mining efforts. Concept indexing differs from simple word or phrase indexing because concepts are typically represented by a nomenclature code that binds a medical concept to all equivalent representations. A concept search on the term renal cell carcinoma would be expected to find occurrences of hypernephroma, and renal carcinoma (concept equivalents). The purpose of this study is to provide freely available resources to compare speed and performance among different autocoders. These tools consist of: 1) a public domain autocoder written in Perl (a free and open source programming language that installs on any operating system); 2) a nomenclature database derived from the unencumbered subset of the publicly available Unified Medical Language System; 3) a large corpus of autocoded output derived from a publicly available medical text. METHODS: A simple lexical autocoder was written that parses plain-text into a listing of all 1,2,3, and 4-word strings contained in text, assigning a nomenclature code for text strings that match terms in the nomenclature. The nomenclature used is the unencumbered subset of the 2003 Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). The unencumbered subset of UMLS was reduced to exclude homonymous one-word terms and proper names, resulting in a term/code data dictionary containing about a half million medical terms. The Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), a 92+ Megabyte publicly available medical opus, was used as sample medical text for the autocoder. RESULTS: The autocoding Perl script is remarkably short, consisting of just 38 command lines. The 92+ Megabyte OMIM file was completely autocoded in 869 seconds on a 2.4 GHz processor (less than 10 seconds per Megabyte of text). The autocoded output file (9,540,442 bytes) contains 367,963 coded terms from OMIM and is distributed with this manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: A public domain Perl script is provided that can parse through plain-text files of any length, matching concepts against an external nomenclature. The script and associated files can be used freely to compare the speed and performance of autocoding software.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a method based on natural language processing (NLP) that automatically maps an entire clinical document to codes with modifiers and to quantitatively evaluate the method. METHODS: An existing NLP system, MedLEE, was adapted to automatically generate codes. The method involves matching of structured output generated by MedLEE consisting of findings and modifiers to obtain the most specific code. Recall and precision applied to Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) coding were evaluated in two separate studies. Recall was measured using a test set of 150 randomly selected sentences, which were processed using MedLEE. Results were compared with a reference standard determined manually by seven experts. Precision was measured using a second test set of 150 randomly selected sentences from which UMLS codes were automatically generated by the method and then validated by experts. RESULTS: Recall of the system for UMLS coding of all terms was .77 (95% CI.72-.81), and for coding terms that had corresponding UMLS codes recall was .83 (.79-.87). Recall of the system for extracting all terms was .84 (.81-.88). Recall of the experts ranged from .69 to .91 for extracting terms. The precision of the system was .89 (.87-.91), and precision of the experts ranged from .61 to .91. CONCLUSION: Extraction of relevant clinical information and UMLS coding were accomplished using a method based on NLP. The method appeared to be comparable to or better than six experts. The advantage of the method is that it maps text to codes along with other related information, rendering the coded output suitable for effective retrieval.