ETACTS: A method for dynamically filtering clinical trial search results

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 46, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1060-1067

  Miotto, Riccardo ^a   Jiang, Silis ^a   Weng, Chunhua ^a  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Association rules; Clinical trials; Dynamic information filtering; Information storage and retrieval; Interactive information retrieval; Tag cloud

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; DYNAMIC INFORMATION; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; INTERACTIVE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; TAG CLOUDS;

ASSOCIATION RULES; DATA MINING; EXPERIMENTS; INDEXING (OF INFORMATION); METADATA; SEARCH ENGINES;

MEDICAL APPLICATIONS;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CASE STUDY; DATA PROCESSING; FEASIBILITY STUDY; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNIFIED MEDICAL LANGUAGE SYSTEM;

ASSOCIATION RULES; CLINICAL TRIALS; DYNAMIC INFORMATION FILTERING; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; INTERACTIVE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; TAG CLOUD;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84888198634     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.07.014     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Califf RM, Filerman G, Murray R, Rosenblatt M. The clinical trials enterprise in the United States: A call for disruptive innovation. Envisioning a transformed clinical trials enterprise in the United States: establishing an Agenda for 2020 (Workshop Summary); 2012.
2. Tassignon J.P., Sinackevich N. Speeding the critical path. Appl Clin Trials 2004.
3. Sullivan J. Subject recruitment and retention: barriers to success. Appl Clin Trials 2004.
4. Atkinson N.L., Massett H.A., Mylks C., Mc Cormack L.A., Kish-Doto J., Hesse B.W., et al. Assessing the impact of user-centered research on a clinical trial eHealth tool via counterbalanced research design. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011, 18(1):24-31.
5. ClinicalTrials.gov; April, 2013. . http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/.
6. UK Clinical Trials Gateway; April, 2013. . http://www.ukctg.nihr.ac.uk/.
7. Ide N.C., Loane R.F., Demner-Fushman D. Essie: a concept-based search engine for structured biomedical text. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007, 14(3):253-263.
8. Patel C.O., Garg V., Khan S.A. What do patients search for when seeking clinical trial information online?. AMIA Ann Symp Proc 2010, 2010:597-601.
9. Weng C., Tu S.W., Sim I., Richesson R. Formal representation of eligibility criteria: a literature review. J Biomed Inform 2010, 43(3):451-467.
10. Weng C., Wu X., Luo Z., Boland M.R., Theodoratos D., Johnson S.B. EliXR: an approach to eligibility criteria extraction and representation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011, 18(Suppl 1). p. i116-24.
11. Ross J., Tu S., Carini S., Sim I. Analysis of eligibility criteria complexity in clinical trials. AMIA Summits Transl Sci Proc 2010, 2010:46-50.
12. Wei B.F., Liu J., Zheng Q.H., Zhang W., Fu X.Y., Feng B.Q. A survey of faceted search. J Web Eng 2013, 12(1-2):41-64.
13. Devadason F., Intaraksa N., Patamawongjariya P., Desai K. Search interface design using faceted indexing for web resources. ASIST 2001, 38:224-238.
14. Yee K.P., Swearingen K., Li K., Hearst M. Faceted metadata for image search and browsing. ACM SIGCHI 2003, 401-408.
15. Yeh S.T., Liu Y. Integrated faceted browser and direct search to enhance information retrieval in text-based digital libraries. Int J Human-Comput Interact 2011, 27(4):364-382.
16. Miotto R., Weng C. Unsupervised mining of frequent tags for clinical eligibility text indexing. J Biomed Inform 2013, in press.
17. De Bruijn B, Carini S, Kiritchenko S, Martin J, Sim I. Automated information extraction of key trial design elements from clinical trial publications. AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2008. p. 141-5.
18. Hernandez ME, Carini S, Storey MA, Sim I. An interactive tool for visualizing design heterogeneity in clinical trials. AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2008. p. 298-302.
19. Chung G.Y. Sentence retrieval for abstracts of randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009, 9:10.
20. Paek H, Kogan Y, Thomas P, Codish S, Krauthammer M. Shallow semantic parsing of randomized controlled trial reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2006. p. 604-8.
21. Xu R, Supekar K, Huang Y, Das A, Garber A. Combining text classification and hidden markov modeling techniques for categorizing sentences in randomized clinical trial abstracts. AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2006. p. 824-8.
22. Boland M.R., Miotto R., Gao J., Weng C. Feasibility of feature-based indexing, clustering, and search of clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov: a case study of breast cancer trials. Methods Inf Med 2013, 52(4).
23. Luo Z., Miotto R., Weng C. A human-computer collaborative approach to identifying common data elements in clinical trial eligibility criteria. J Biomed Inform 2013, 46(1):33-39.
24. Tu S.W., Peleg M., Carini S., Bobak M., Ross J., Rubin D., et al. A practical method for transforming free-text eligibility criteria into computable criteria. J Biomed Inform 2011, 44(2):239-250.
25. Parker CG, Embley DW. Generating medical logic modules for clinical trial eligibility criteria. AMIA Annu Symp Proc; 2003. p. 964.
26. Aronson A.R., Lang F.M. An overview of MetaMap: historical perspective and recent advances. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010, 17(3):229-236.
27. Luo Z., Duffy R., Johnson S., Weng C. Corpus-based approach to creating a semantic lexicon for clinical research eligibility criteria from UMLS. AMIA Summits Transl Sci Proc 2010, 2010:26-30.
28. Atkinson N.L., Saperstein S.L., Massett H.A., Leonard C.R., Grama L., Manrow R. Using the Internet to search for cancer clinical trials: a comparative audit of clinical trial search tools. Contemp Clin Trials 2008, 29(4):555-564.
29. Metz J.M., Coyle C., Hudson C., Hampshire M. An internet-based cancer clinical trials matching resource. J Med Internet Res 2005, 7(3):e24.
30. Wei S.J., Metz J.M., Coyle C., Hampshire M., Jones H.A., Markowitz S., et al. Recruitment of patients into an Internet-based clinical trials database: the experience of OncoLink and the national colorectal cancer research alliance. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22(23):4730-4736.
31. Embi P.J., Jain A., Clark J., Bizjack S., Hornung R., Harris C.M. Effect of a clinical trial alert system on physician participation in trial recruitment. Arch Int Med 2005, 165(19):2272-2277.
32. Ask Dory!; April, 2013. . http://dory.trialx.com/ask/.
33. PatientsLikeMe; April, 2013. . http://www.patientslikeme.com/.
34. SearchClinicalTrials; April, 2013. . http://www.searchclinicaltrials.org/.
35. TrialReach; April, 2013. . http://www.trialreach.com/.
36. ResearchMatch; April, 2013. . https://http://www.researchmatch.org/.
37. Corengi; April, 2013. . https://http://www.corengi.com/.
38. Korkontzelos I., Mu T., Ananiadou S. ASCOT: a text mining-based web-service for efficient search and assisted creation of clinical trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Making 2012, 12(Suppl. 1):S3.
39. Lindberg D.A., Humphreys B.L., Mccray A.T. The unified medical language system. Method Inf Med 1993, 32(4):281-291.
40. Ruthven I. Interactive information retrieval. Annu Rev Inform Sci Technol 2008, 42:43-91.
41. Hassan-Montero Y, Herrero-Solana V. Improving tag-clouds as visual information retrieval interfaces. In: Int conf on multidisciplinary information sciences and technologies; 2006.
42. Kaser O, Lemire D. Tag-cloud drawing: algorithms for cloud visualization. In: Workshop on tagging and metadata for social information organization (WWW 2007); 2007.
43. Murtagh F., Ganz A., Mckie S., Mothe J., Englmeier K. Tag clouds for displaying semantics: the case of filmscripts. Inform Visual 2010, 9(4):253-262.
44. Harris J. Word clouds considered harmful; 2011. . http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/10/word-clouds-considered-harmful/.
45. Hearst M., Rosner D. Tag clouds: data analysis tool or social signaller?. Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci 2008, 160.
46. Zeldman J. Remove forebrain and serve: Tag Clouds II; 2008. . http://www.zeldman.com/daily/0505a.shtml.
47. O'grady L., Wathen C.N., Charnaw-Burger J., Betel L., Shachak A., Luke R., et al. The use of tags and tag clouds to discern credible content in online health message forums. Int J Med Inform 2012, 81(1):36-44.
48. Levy M., Sandler M. Music information retrieval using social tags and audio. IEEE Trans Multimedia 2009, 11(3):383-395.
49. Callegari J, Morreale P. Assessment of the utility of tag clouds for faster image retrieval. ACM Int Conf on MIR; 2010. p. 437-40.
50. Rakesh A, Ramakrishnan S. Fast algorithms for mining association rules in large databases. Int Conf on Very Large Databases; 1994. p. 487-99.
51. Han J.W., Pei J., Yin Y.W., Mao R.Y. Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation: a frequent-pattern tree approach. Data Mining Knowl Discov 2004, 8(1):53-87.
52. Manning C.D., Raghavan P., Schutze H. Introduction to information retrieval 2008, 482. Cambridge University Press, New York.
53. Santos R.L.T., Macdonald C., Ounis I. On the role of novelty for search result diversification. Inform Retrieval 2012, 15(5):478-502.
54. Santos RLT, Macdonald C, Ounis I. Selectively diversifying Web search results. ACM CIKM; 2010. p. 1179-88.
55. Rogers ML, Patterson E, Chapman R, Render M. Usability testing and the relation of clinical information systems to patient safety. Advances in patient safety: from research to implementation (volume 2: concepts and methodology); 2005.
56. Dong J, Kelkar K, Braun K. Getting the most out of personas for product usability enhancements. Int conf on usability and internationalization; 2007. p. 291-6.
57. Zheng K., Padma R., Johnson M.P., Diamond H.S. An interface-driven analysis of user interactions with an electronic health records system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009, 16(2):228-237.
58. Hwang W., Salvendy G. Number of people required for usability evaluation: the 10±2 rule. Commun ACM 2010, 53(5):130-133.