2010
DOI: 10.1007/s10115-010-0327-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Information retrieval with concept-based pseudo-relevance feedback in MEDLINE

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The assignment of MeSH terms is a binary decision by professionals based on their interpretation of the content and use of the thesaurus. While MeSH terms have shown great effectiveness in many IR applications (Shin & Han, 2004; Meij, et al, 2010; Jalali & Borujerdi, 2011), the current binary model of description using MeSH terms is insufficient in reflecting the inherent uncertainties in the subject indexing process (Mai, 2001). It has been noted that a piece of work can be related to multiple facets and each facet could have different importance depending on whether it is the major or minor point.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assignment of MeSH terms is a binary decision by professionals based on their interpretation of the content and use of the thesaurus. While MeSH terms have shown great effectiveness in many IR applications (Shin & Han, 2004; Meij, et al, 2010; Jalali & Borujerdi, 2011), the current binary model of description using MeSH terms is insufficient in reflecting the inherent uncertainties in the subject indexing process (Mai, 2001). It has been noted that a piece of work can be related to multiple facets and each facet could have different importance depending on whether it is the major or minor point.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Queries in the dataset are, on average, 14 terms long, which is much shorter than the queries considered in this article (80 terms). After its introduction, the OHSUMED collection has been extensively used to evaluate classification (e.g., Genkin, Lewis, & Madigan, ; Han & Karypis, ; Xu & Li, ), learning to rank (e.g., Cao et al, ; Duh & Kirchhoff, ; Liu, Xu, Qin, Xiong, & Li, ), and query reformulation (Abdou & Savoy, ; Dong, Srimani, & Wang, ; Haveliwala, ; Hersh, Price, & Donohoe, ; Jalali & Borujerdi, ; Liu & Chu, ; Srinivasan, ; Thesprasith & Jaruskulchai, ). Works in the latter group are the most similar to our systems; they can be further partitioned based on the approach used: ontology‐based reformulation, Pseudo Relevance Feedback (PRF), and a combination of the two.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kayaalp et al 2003;Díaz-Galiano et al 2009;Pestana 2009;Jalali and Borujerdi 2011;Yeganova et al 2011;Darmoni et al 2012) and word sense disambiguation (e.g. Kayaalp et al 2003;Díaz-Galiano et al 2009;Pestana 2009;Jalali and Borujerdi 2011;Yeganova et al 2011;Darmoni et al 2012) and word sense disambiguation (e.g.…”
Section: Pubmedmentioning
confidence: 99%