PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10303917

Ranking documents with a thesaurus.

Abstract

This article reports on exploratory experiments in evaluating and improving a thesaurus through studying its effect on retrieval. A formula called DISTANCE was developed to measure the conceptual distance between queries and documents encoded as sets of thesaurus terms. DISTANCE references MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and assesses the degree of match between a MeSH-encoded query and document. The performance of DISTANCE on MeSH is compared to the performance of people in the assessment of conceptual distance between queries and documents, and is found to simulate with surprising accuracy the human performance. The power of the computer simulation stems both from the tendency of people to rely heavily on broader-than (BT) relations in making decisions about conceptual distance and from the thousands of accurate BT relations in MeSH. One source for discrepancy between the algorithms' measurement of closeness between query and document and people's measurement of closeness between query and document is occasional inconsistency in the BT relations. Our experiments with adding non-BT relations to MeSH showed how these non-BT non-BT relations to MeSH showed how these non-BT relations could improve document ranking, if DISTANCE were also appropriately revised to treat these relations differently from BT relations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Rada, E Bicknell. 1989. Ranking documents with a thesaurus.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(198909)40%3A5%3C304%3A%3Aaid-asi2%3E3.0.co%3B2-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A comparative evaluation of full-text, concept-based, and context-sensitive search.

OBJECTIVES: Study comparatively (1) concept-based search, using documents pre-indexed by a conceptual hierarchy; (2) context-sensitive search, using structured, labeled documents; and (3) traditional full-text search. Hypotheses were: (1) more contexts lead to better retrieval accuracy; and (2) adding concept-based search to the other searches would improve upon their baseline performances. DESIGN: Use our Vaidurya architecture, for search and retrieval evaluation, of structured documents classified by a conceptual hierarchy, on a clinical guidelines test collection. MEASUREMENTS: Precision computed at different levels of recall to assess the contribution of the retrieval methods. Comparisons of precisions done with recall set at 0.5, using t-tests. RESULTS: Performance increased monotonically with the number of query context elements. Adding context-sensitive elements, mean improvement was 11.1% at recall 0.5. With three contexts, mean query precision was 42% +/- 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31% to 53%); with two contexts, 32% +/- 13% (95% CI, 27% to 38%); and one context, 20% +/- 9% (95% CI, 15% to 24%). Adding context-based queries to full-text queries monotonically improved precision beyond the 0.4 level of recall. Mean improvement was 4.5% at recall 0.5. Adding concept-based search to full-text search improved precision to 19.4% at recall 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated usefulness of concept-based and context-sensitive queries for enhancing the precision of retrieval from a digital library of semi-structured clinical guideline documents. Concept-based searches outperformed free-text queries, especially when baseline precision was low. In general, the more ontological elements used in the query, the greater the resulting precision.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

Improvements to the Red List Index.

The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings. Two additional advantages of the revisions are that assessment errors are not propagated through time, and the overall level extinction risk can be determined as well as trends in this over time.

Abstracting and Indexing↗