UNSUPERVISED INDEXING OF MEDLINE ARTICLES THROUGH GRAPH-BASED RANKING

The biomedical literature is extensively catalogued and indexed in MEDLINE. MEDLINE indexing is done by trained human indexers, who identify the most important concepts in each article, and is expensive and inconsistent. Automating the indexing task is difficult: the National Library of Medicine produces the Medical Text Indexer (MTI), which suggests potential indexing terms to the indexers. MTI’s output is not good enough to work unattended. In my thesis, I propose a different way to approach the indexing task called MEDRank. MEDRank creates graphs representing the concepts in biomedical articles and their relationships within the text, and applies graph-based ranking algorithms to identify the most important concepts in each article. I evaluate the performance of several automated indexing solutions, including my own, by comparing their output to the indexing terms selected by the human indexers. MEDRank outperformed all other evaluated indexing solutions, including MTI, in general indexing performance and precision. MEDRank can be used to cluster documents, index any kind of biomedical text with standard vocabularies, or could become part of MTI itself.

Using citation data to improve retrieval from MEDLINE.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether algorithms developed for the World Wide Web can be applied to the biomedical literature in order to identify articles that are important as well as relevant. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS A direct comparison of eight algorithms: simple PubMed queries, clinical queries (sensitive and specific versions), vector cosine comparison, citation count, journal impact factor, PageRank, and machine learning based on polynomial support vector machines. The objective was to prioritize important articles, defined as being included in a pre-existing bibliography of important literature in surgical oncology. RESULTS Citation-based algorithms were more effective than noncitation-based algorithms at identifying important articles. The most effective strategies were simple citation count and PageRank, which on average identified over six important articles in the first 100 results compared to 0.85 for the best noncitation-based algorithm (p < 0.001). The authors saw similar differences between citation-based and noncitation-based algorithms at 10, 20, 50, 200, 500, and 1,000 results (p < 0.001). Citation lag affects performance of PageRank more than simple citation count. However, in spite of citation lag, citation-based algorithms remain more effective than noncitation-based algorithms. CONCLUSION Algorithms that have proved successful on the World Wide Web can be applied to biomedical information retrieval. Citation-based algorithms can help identify important articles within large sets of relevant results. Further studies are needed to determine whether citation-based algorithms can effectively meet actual user information needs.

Using incomplete citation data for MEDLINE results ranking.

Information overload is a significant problem for modern medicine. Searching MEDLINE for common topics often retrieves more relevant documents than users can review. Therefore, we must identify documents that are not only relevant, but also important. Our system ranks articles using citation counts and the PageRank algorithm, incorporating data from the Science Citation Index. However, citation data is usually incomplete. Therefore, we explore the relationship between the quantity of citation information available to the system and the quality of the result ranking. Specifically, we test the ability of citation count and PageRank to identify "important articles" as defined by experts from large result sets with decreasing citation information. We found that PageRank performs better than simple citation counts, but both algorithms are surprisingly robust to information loss. We conclude that even an incomplete citation database is likely to be effective for importance ranking.

Using incomplete citation data for MEDLINE results ranking.

Information overload is a significant problem for modern medicine. Searching MEDLINE for common topics often retrieves more relevant documents than users can review. Therefore, we must identify documents that are not only relevant, but also important. Our system ranks articles using citation counts and the PageRank algorithm, incorporating data from the Science Citation Index. However, citation data is usually incomplete. Therefore, we explore the relationship between the quantity of citation information available to the system and the quality of the result ranking. Specifically, we test the ability of citation count and PageRank to identify "important articles" as defined by experts from large result sets with decreasing citation information. We found that PageRank performs better than simple citation counts, but both algorithms are surprisingly robust to information loss. We conclude that even an incomplete citation database is likely to be effective for importance ranking.