PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16779035

Facilitating physicians' access to information via tailored text summarization.

Noemie Elhadad·Kathleen McKeown·David Kaufman·Desmond Jordan
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We have developed a summarization system, TAS (Technical Article Summarizer), which, when provided with a patient record and journal articles returned by a search, automatically generates a summary that is tailored to the patient characteristics. We hypothesize that a personalized summary will allow a physician to more quickly find information relevant to patient care. In this paper, we present a user study in which subjects carried out a task under three different conditions: using search results only, using a generic summary and search results, and using a personalized summary with search results. Our study demonstrates that subjects do a better job on task completion with the personalized summary, and show a higher level of satisfaction, than under other conditions.

Explore related subjects

Abstracting and IndexingAnalysis of VarianceHumansInformation ServicesInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPatient Care PlanningPeriodicals as TopicPhysiciansSurveys and QuestionnairesTask Performance and AnalysisUser-Computer InterfaceEvaluation StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Noemie Elhadad, Kathleen McKeown, David Kaufman, Desmond Jordan. 2005. Facilitating physicians' access to information via tailored text summarization.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16779035/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

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↗
PubMed2007

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↗