2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.02.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Lexical Approach for Text Categorization of Medical Documents

Abstract: This research proposes a novel lexical approach to text categorization in the bio-medical domain. We have proposed LKNN (Lexical KNN) algorithm, in which lexemes (tokens) are used to represent the medical documents. These tokens are used to classify the abstracts by matching them with the standard list of keywords specified as MESH (Medical Subject Headings). It automatically classifies journal articles of medical domain into specific categories. We have used the collection of medical documents, called Ohsumed… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Then the average comparison results show that the performance enhancement of the DPCA-MGAC technique. As a result of the comparison, the precision is increased by 6% and 12% when compared to existing GSRM and LKNN respectively [9], [10].…”
Section: Figure 2 Performance Results Of Precisionmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Then the average comparison results show that the performance enhancement of the DPCA-MGAC technique. As a result of the comparison, the precision is increased by 6% and 12% when compared to existing GSRM and LKNN respectively [9], [10].…”
Section: Figure 2 Performance Results Of Precisionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The results and discussion of proposed DPCA-MGAC technique and existing methods are described with various performance metrics such as precision, false positive rate and time complexity. With the help of these parametric analysis, the comparison between three methods namely DPCA-MGAC technique, GSRM and LKNN is performed [9], [10]. The comparison results of three methods are explained in following section.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations