生物医学系统检索中高查全率的挑战

Sarvnaz Karimi, J. Zobel, Stefan Pohl, Falk Scholer
{"title":"生物医学系统检索中高查全率的挑战","authors":"Sarvnaz Karimi, J. Zobel, Stefan Pohl, Falk Scholer","doi":"10.1145/1651318.1651338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical systematic reviews are based on expert, laborious search of well-annotated literature. Boolean search on bibliographic databases, such as MEDLINE, continues to be the preferred discovery method, but the size of these databases, now approaching 20 million records, makes it impossible to fully trust these searching methods. We are investigating the trade-offs between Boolean and ranked retrieval. Our findings show that although Boolean search has limitations, it is not obvious that ranking is superior, and illustrate that a single query cannot be used to resolve an information need. Our experiments show that a combination of less complicated Boolean queries and ranked retrieval outperforms either of them individually, leading to possible time savings over the current process.","PeriodicalId":143937,"journal":{"name":"Data and Text Mining in Bioinformatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The challenge of high recall in biomedical systematic search\",\"authors\":\"Sarvnaz Karimi, J. Zobel, Stefan Pohl, Falk Scholer\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1651318.1651338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Clinical systematic reviews are based on expert, laborious search of well-annotated literature. Boolean search on bibliographic databases, such as MEDLINE, continues to be the preferred discovery method, but the size of these databases, now approaching 20 million records, makes it impossible to fully trust these searching methods. We are investigating the trade-offs between Boolean and ranked retrieval. Our findings show that although Boolean search has limitations, it is not obvious that ranking is superior, and illustrate that a single query cannot be used to resolve an information need. Our experiments show that a combination of less complicated Boolean queries and ranked retrieval outperforms either of them individually, leading to possible time savings over the current process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Data and Text Mining in Bioinformatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Data and Text Mining in Bioinformatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1651318.1651338\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data and Text Mining in Bioinformatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1651318.1651338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

临床系统评价是建立在专家的基础上的,费力地搜索有充分注释的文献。在书目数据库(如MEDLINE)上进行布尔搜索仍然是首选的发现方法,但是这些数据库的规模(现在接近2000万条记录)使得不可能完全信任这些搜索方法。我们正在研究布尔检索和排名检索之间的权衡。我们的研究结果表明,尽管布尔搜索有局限性,但排名并不明显优越,并说明单个查询不能用于解决信息需求。我们的实验表明,不太复杂的布尔查询和排名检索的组合比它们单独的任何一个都要好,从而可能比当前的过程节省时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The challenge of high recall in biomedical systematic search
Clinical systematic reviews are based on expert, laborious search of well-annotated literature. Boolean search on bibliographic databases, such as MEDLINE, continues to be the preferred discovery method, but the size of these databases, now approaching 20 million records, makes it impossible to fully trust these searching methods. We are investigating the trade-offs between Boolean and ranked retrieval. Our findings show that although Boolean search has limitations, it is not obvious that ranking is superior, and illustrate that a single query cannot be used to resolve an information need. Our experiments show that a combination of less complicated Boolean queries and ranked retrieval outperforms either of them individually, leading to possible time savings over the current process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信