Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10984469

Corpus-based statistical screening for phrase identification.

Abstract

PURPOSE: The authors study the extraction of useful phrases from a natural language database by statistical methods. The aim is to leverage human effort by providing preprocessed phrase lists with a high percentage of useful material. METHOD: The approach is to develop six different scoring methods that are based on different aspects of phrase occurrence. The emphasis here is not on lexical information or syntactic structure but rather on the statistical properties of word pairs and triples that can be obtained from a large database. MEASUREMENTS: The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) incorporates a large list of humanly acceptable phrases in the medical field as a part of its structure. The authors use this list of phrases as a gold standard for validating their methods. A good method is one that ranks the UMLS phrases high among all phrases studied. Measurements are 11-point average precision values and precision-recall curves based on the rankings. RESULT: The authors find of six different scoring methods that each proves effective in identifying UMLS quality phrases in a large subset of MEDLINE. These methods are applicable both to word pairs and word triples. All six methods are optimally combined to produce composite scoring methods that are more effective than any single method. The quality of the composite methods appears sufficient to support the automatic placement of hyperlinks in text at the site of highly ranked phrases. CONCLUSION: Statistical scoring methods provide a promising approach to the extraction of useful phrases from a natural language database for the purpose of indexing or providing hyperlinks in text.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W Kim, W J Wilbur. Corpus-based statistical screening for phrase identification.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2000.0070499

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↗