Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0666666 = product of:
  0.0999999 = sum of:
    0.08328357 = weight(_text_:query in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08328357 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.3630963 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.016716326 = product of:
      0.03343265 = sum of:
        0.03343265 = weight(_text_:22 in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03343265 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1728227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049352113 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Passages can be hidden within a text to circumvent their disallowed transfer. Such release of compartmentalized information is of concern to all corporate and governmental organizations. Passage retrieval is well studied; we posit, however, that passage detection is not. Passage retrieval is the determination of the degree of relevance of blocks of text, namely passages, comprising a document. Rather than determining the relevance of a document in its entirety, passage retrieval determines the relevance of the individual passages. As such, modified traditional information-retrieval techniques compare terms found in user queries with the individual passages to determine a similarity score for passages of interest. In passage detection, passages are classified into predetermined categories. More often than not, passage detection techniques are deployed to detect hidden paragraphs in documents. That is, to hide information, documents are injected with hidden text into passages. Rather than matching query terms against passages to determine their relevance, using text-mining techniques, the passages are classified. Those documents with hidden passages are defined as infected. Thus, simply stated, passage retrieval is the search for passages relevant to a user query, while passage detection is the classification of passages. That is, in passage detection, passages are labeled with one or more categories from a set of predetermined categories. We present a keyword-based dynamic passage approach (KDP) and demonstrate that KDP outperforms statistically significantly (99% confidence) the other document-splitting approaches by 12% to 18% in the passage detection and passage category-prediction tasks. Furthermore, we evaluate the effects of the feature selection, passage length, ambiguous passages, and finally training-data category distribution on passage-detection accuracy.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:14:43

0.027761191 = product of:
  0.08328357 = sum of:
    0.08328357 = weight(_text_:query in 3957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08328357 = score(doc=3957,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.3630963 = fieldWeight in 3957, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3957)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The large volume of biomedical literature poses a serious problem for medical professionals, who are often struggling to keep current with it. At the same time, many health providers consider knowledge of the latest literature in their field a key component for successful clinical practice. In this work, we introduce two systems designed to help retrieving medical literature. Both receive a long, discursive clinical note as input query, and return highly relevant literature that could be used in support of clinical practice. The first system is an improved version of a method previously proposed by the authors; it combines pseudo relevance feedback and a domain-specific term filter to reformulate the query. The second is an approach that uses a deep neural network to reformulate a clinical note. Both approaches were evaluated on the 2014 and 2015 TREC CDS datasets; in our tests, they outperform the previously proposed method by up to 28% in inferred NDCG; furthermore, they are competitive with the state of the art, achieving up to 8% improvement in inferred NDCG.

0.019630127 = product of:
  0.05889038 = sum of:
    0.05889038 = weight(_text_:query in 2380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05889038 = score(doc=2380,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22937049 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049352113 = queryNorm
        0.25674784 = fieldWeight in 2380, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6476326 = idf(docFreq=1151, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2380)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We explore unsupervised learning techniques for extracting semantic information about biomedical concepts and topics, and introduce a passage retrieval model for using these semantics in context to improve genomics literature search. Our contributions include a new passage retrieval model based on an undirected graphical model (Markov Random Fields), and new methods for modeling passage-concepts, document-topics, and passage-terms as potential functions within the model. Each potential function includes distributional evidence to disambiguate topics, concepts, and terms in context. The joint distribution across potential functions in the graph represents the probability of a passage being relevant to a biologist's information need. Relevance ranking within each potential function simplifies normalization across potential functions and eliminates the need for tuning of passage retrieval model parameters. Our dimensional indexing model facilitates efficient aggregation of topic, concept, and term distributions. The proposed passage-retrieval model improves search results in the presence of varying levels of semantic evidence, outperforming models of query terms, concepts, or document topics alone. Our results exceed the state-of-the-art for automatic document retrieval by 14.46% (0.3554 vs. 0.3105) and passage retrieval by 15.57% (0.1128 vs. 0.0976) as assessed by the TREC 2007 Genomics Track, and automatic document retrieval by 18.56% (0.3424 vs. 0.2888) as assessed by the TREC 2005 Genomics Track. Automatic document retrieval results for TREC 2007 and TREC 2005 are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (p = .0359 and .0253, respectively). Passage retrieval is significant at the 90% confidence level (p = 0.0893).