A hybrid knowledge-based and data-driven approach to identifying semantically similar concepts

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 471-481

  Pivovarov, Rimma ^a   Elhadad, Noémie ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Distributional semantics; Graph based metrics; Ontologies; Semantic similarity; SNOMED CT

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVES; CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE; COMPREHENSIVE METHOD; CONTEXT DEPENDENT; DATA SETS; DATA-DRIVEN APPROACH; GRAPH-BASED; KIDNEY DISEASE; ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURES; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; SEMANTIC SIMILARITY; SIMILARITY SCORES; SNOMED-CT; USAGE PATTERNS;

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; ONTOLOGY; SEMANTICS;

AGGREGATES;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE; DATA PROCESSING; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS;

AREA UNDER CURVE; CHRONIC DISEASE; DATA MINING; HUMANS; KIDNEY DISEASES; KNOWLEDGE BASES; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; SEMANTICS; SYSTEMATIZED NOMENCLATURE OF MEDICINE;

EID: 84861846015     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2012.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Lindberg D.A., Humphreys B.L., McCray A.T. The unified medical language system. Methods Inform Med 1993, 32:281-291.
2. Popescu M., Xu D. Data mining in biomedicine using ontologies 2009, Artech House Publishers, Massachusetts.
3. Dong H., Hussain F.K., Chang E. A context-aware semantic similarity model for ontology environments. Concurr Computat: Pract Exp 2010, 23:505-524.
4. Pakhomov SV, McInnes B, Adam B, Liu Y, Pedersen T, Melton GB. Semantic similarity and relatedness between clinical terms: an experimental study. In: Proceedings of American medical informatics association symposium, Washington (DC); 2010. p. 572-6.
5. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psycol Rev 1977, 84:327-352.
6. Rada R., Mili H., Bicknell E., Blettner M. Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1989, 9:17-30.
7. Androutsopoulos I., Malakasiotis P. A survey of paraphrasing and textual entailment methods. J Artif Intell Res 2010, 38:135-187.
8. Benabderrahmane S., Smail-Tabbone M., Poch O., Napoli A., Devignes M.D. IntelliGO: a new vector-based semantic similarity measure including annotation origin. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:588-603.
9. Verspoor K., Dvorkin D., Cohen K. Ontology quality assurance through analysis of term transformations. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:77-84.
10. Elhadad N, Sutaria K. Mining a lexicon of technical terms and lay equivalents. In: Proceedings of the workshop on BioNLP: biological, translational, and clinical language processing. Prague; 2007. p. 49-56.
11. Pedersen T., Pakhomov S.V., Patwardhan S., Chute C. Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness in the biomedical domain. J Biomed Inform 2007, 40:288-299.
12. Budanitsky A., Hirst G. Evaluating WordNet-based measures of lexical semantic relatedness. Comput Linguist 2005, 32:13-47.
13. McInnes B, Pedersen T, Pakhomov SV. UMLS-interface and UMLS-similarity: open source software for measuring paths and semantic similarity. In: Proceedings of the American medical informatics symposium, San Francisco (CA); November 2009. p. 431-35.
14. Caviedes J.E., Cimino J.J. Towards the development of a conceptual distance metric for the UMLS. J Biomed Inform 2004, 37:77-85.
15. Leacock C., Chodorow M. Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. WordNet: an electronic lexical database 1998, 265-283. MIT Press, Massachusetts. C. Fellbaum (Ed.).
16. Wu Z, Palmer M. Verbs semantics and lexical selection, In: 32nd Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Las Cruces (New Mexico): association for, computational linguistics; 1994. p. 133-38.
17. Al-Mubaid H, Nguyen HA. A cluster-based approach for semantic similarity in the biomedical domain. In: 28th Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society. New York (USA): EMBS 2006 IEEE Computer Society; 2006, p. 2713-7.
18. Matar Y, Egyed-Zsigmond E, Lajmi S. KWSim: concepts similarity measure. In: Proceedings of conférence en recherche d'Information et applications (CORIA08). France; 2008. p. 475-82.
19. Batet M., Sánchez D., Valls A. An ontology-based measure to compute semantic similarity in biomedicine. J Biomed Inform 2010, 44:118-125.
20. Resnik P. Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. 14th International joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI 1995 1995, 448-453. Morgan Kaufmann Publishes Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada. C.S. Mellish (Ed.).
21. Lin D. An information-theoretic definition of similarity. Fifteenth international conference of machine learning, ICML 1998 1998, 296-304. Morgan Kaufmann, Madison (Wisconsin, USA). J. Shavlik (Ed.).
22. Jiang JJ, Conrath DW. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: International conference on research in computational linguistics, ROCLING X, Taipei Taiwan; 1997. p. 19-33.
23. Pirro G., Seco N. Design, implementation and evaluation of a new semantic similarity metric combining features and intrinsic information content. OTM 2008 confederated international conferences, CoopIS, DOA, GADA, IS, and ODBASE 2008 2008, 1271-1288. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (Monterrey, Mexico). R. Meersman, Z. Tari (Eds.).
24. Cohen T., Widdows D. Empirical distributional semantics: methods and biomedical applications. J Biomed Inform 2009, 42:390-405.
25. Lesk M. Automatic sense disambiguation using machine readable dictionaries: how to tell a pine cone from an ice cream cone. In: Proceedings of the 5th annual international conference on systems documentation. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 1986. p. 24-26.
26. Banerjee S, Pedersen T. An adapted lesk algorithm for word sense disambiguation using WordNet. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics. Mexico City, Mexico; 2002. p. 136-45.
27. Hamon T, Grabar N. How can the term compositionality be useful for acquiring elementary semantic relations? In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on advances in natural language processing. Berlin. 2008. p. 181-92.
28. Cordí V, Lombardi P, Martelli M, Mascardi V. An ontology-based similarity between sets of concepts. In: Proceedings of WOA. Italy; 2005. p. 16-21.
29. Li Y., Bandar Z., McLean D. An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE Trans Knowledge Data Eng 2003, 15:871-882.
30. Rodríguez M., Egenhofer M.J. Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Trans Knowledge Data 2003, 15:442-456.
31. Petrakis EGM, Varelas G, Hiliaoutakis A, Raftopoulou P. Design and evaluation of semantic similarity measures for concepts stemming from the same or different ontologies. In: 4th Workshop on multimedia semantics. Greece; 2006. p. 44-52.
32. Singh S, Vajirkar P. Context-aware data mining using ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on conceptual modeling. Japan; 2003. p. 405-18.
33. Wu G, Chang E, Panda N. Formulating context-dependent similarity functions. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on multimedia. Chicago; 2005. p. 725-34.
34. Janowicz K. Kinds of contexts and their impact on semantic similarity measurement. In: 5th IEEE workshop on context modeling and reasoning (CoMoRea 2008) at the 6th IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communication. Hong Kong; 2008. p. 441-6.
35. Keßler C, Raubal M, Janowicz K. The effect of context on semantic similarity measurement. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM workshops. Berlin; 2007. p. 1274-84.
36. Lipsky-Gorman S., Elhadad N. ClinNote and HealthTermFinder: a pipeline for processing clinical notes 2011, Columbia University Technical Report.
37. Li Y, Lipsky-Gorman S, Elhadad N. Section classification in clinical notes using a supervised hidden markov model. In: ACM international health informatics symposium (IHI); 2010. p. 744-50.
38. SNOMED-CT: Scope Memo. July 2010 international release.
39. McCray A.T., Burgun A., Bodenreider O. Aggregating UMLS semantic types for reducing conceptual complexity. Stud Health Technol Inform 2001, 10:216-220.
40. Manning C., Raghavan P., Schütze H. Introduction to information retrieval 2008, Cambridge University Press, Schütze, [chapter 6].
41. Cohen JA. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educat Psychol Measure; 1960.
42. Landis R.J., Koch G.G. Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1997, 33:159-174.
43. Hanley J., McNeil B. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983, 148:839-843.
44. Pakhomov S., Pedersen T., McInnes B., Melton G.B., Ruggieri A., Chute C. Towards a framework for developing semantic relatedness reference standards. J Biomed Inform 2011, 44:251-265.
45. Kotlerman L., Dagan I., Szpektor I., Zhitomirsky-Geffet M. Directional distributional similarity for lexical inference. Nat Language Eng 2010, 16:358-389.