Clustering clinical trials with similar eligibility criteria features

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 52, Issue , 2014, Pages 112-120

  Hao, Tianyong ^a   Rusanov, Alexander ^a   Boland, Mary Regina ^a   Weng, Chunhua ^a  

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

Author keywords

Clinical trial; Cluster analysis; Medical informatics

Indexed keywords

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CROWDSOURCING; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; SEMANTICS;

AMAZON MECHANICAL TURKS; AUTOMATED APPROACH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CLUSTER EVALUATIONS; ELIGIBILITY CRITERION; PUBLIC REPOSITORIES; SIMILARITY THRESHOLD; STRUCTURAL INFORMATION;

MEDICAL APPLICATIONS;

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CROWDSOURCING; EVALUATION STUDY; CLASSIFICATION; DATA MINING; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PROCEDURES; SEMANTICS;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DATA MINING; HUMANS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84919860385     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bollier D. The promise and peril of big data. The Aspen Institute. ISBN: 0-89843-516-1; 2010.
2. Miotto R., Jiang S., Weng C. ETACTS: a method for dynamically filtering clinical trial search results. J Biomed Inform December 2013, 46(6):1060-1067.
3. Patel C., Gomadam K., Khan S., Garg V. TrialX: using semantic technologies to match patients to relevant clinical trials based on their personal health records. Web Semantics Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 2010, 8(4):342-347.
4. Campbell M.K., Snowdon C., Francis D., et al. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess 2007, 11(48). iii, ix-105.
5. 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.
6. 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):i116-i124.
7. Milian K, Bucur A, Teije AT. Formalization of clinical trial eligibility criteria: evaluation of a pattern-based approach. In: Proc. of the IEEE international conference on bioinformatics and biomedicine; 2012. p. 1-4.
8. Boland M.R., Miotto R., Gao J., Weng C. Feasibility of feature-based indexing, clustering, and search of clinical trials. a case study of breast cancer trials from ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods Inf Med 2013, 52(4).
9. Ross J., Tu S., Carini S., Sim I. Analysis of eligibility criteria complexity in clinical trials. AMIA Summits Transl Sci Proc 2010, 46-50.
10. 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 Mak 2012, 12(Suppl. 1):S3.
11. Luo Z., Duffy R., Johnson SB., Weng C. Corpus-based approach to creating a semantic lexicon for clinical research eligibility criteria from UMLS. AMIA Summit Clin Res Inform 2010, 26-31.
12. Perkins J. Python text processing with NLTK 2.0 cookbook 2010, Packt Publishing.
13. Luo Z., Yetisgen-Yildiz M., Weng C. Dynamic categorization of clinical research eligibility criteria by hierarchical clustering. J Biomed Inform 2011, 44(6):927-935.
14. Mihalcea R, Corley C, Strapparava C. Corpus-based and knowledge-based measures of text semantic similarity. In: Anthony Cohn, editor. Proc. of the 21st national conference on Artificial intelligence (AAAI'06), vol 1; 2006. p. 775-80.
15. Metzler D., Dumais S., Meek C. Similarity measures for short segments of text. Adv Inform Retrieval Lect Notes Comput Sci 2007, 4425:16-27.
16. Jiang JJ, Conrath DW. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: Proc. of the int'l. conf. on research in computational linguistics; 1997. p. 19-33.
17. Corley C, Mihalcea R. Measuring the semantic similarity of texts. In: Proc. of the ACL workshop on empirical modeling of semantic equivalence and entailment (EMSEE '05), Stroudsburg, PA, USA; 2005. p. 13-18.
18. Hao T, Lu Z, Wang S, Zou T, Gu S, Liu W. Categorizing and ranking search engine's results by semantic similarity. In: Proc. of the 2nd international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication; 2008. p. 284-288.
19. Pedersen T., Pakhomov S.V.S., Patwardhan S., Chute C.G. Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness in the biomedical domain. J Biomed Inform 2007, 40(3):288-299.
20. Huang A. Similarity measures for text document clustering. In: Proc. of the New Zealand computer science research student conference (NZCSRSC'08), Christchurch, New Zealand; 2007. p. 49-56.
21. Niwattanakul S, Singthongchai J, Naenudorn E, Wanapu S. Using of Jaccard coefficient for keywords similarity. In: Proc. of the international multi conference of engineers and computer scientists, vol I; 2013. p. 380-4.
22. Hirano S., Sun X., Tsumoto S. Comparison of clustering methods for clinical databases. Inform Sci 2004, 159(3-4):155-165.
23. Fushman DD, Lin J. Answer extraction, semantic clustering, and extractive summarization for clinical question answering. In: Proc. of the 21st ACL; 2006. p. 841-8.
24. Shash S.F., Mollá D. Clustering of medical publications for evidence based medicine summarization. Artif Intell Med Lect Notes Comput Sci 2013, 7885:305-309.
25. Li P.H., Wong W.H.S., Lee T.L., et al. Relationship between autoantibody clustering and clinical subsets in SLE: cluster and association analyses in Hong Kong Chinese. Rheumatology 2013, 52(2):337-345.
26. Xu R., Wunsch D. Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE Trans Neural Netw May 2005, 16(3):645-678.
27. Beis JS, Lowe DG. Shape indexing using approximate nearest-neighbor search in high-dimensional spaces. In: Proc. of the 1997 conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR '97); 1997. p. 1000-6.
28. Ester M, Kriegel H, Sander J, Xu X. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In: Proc. of the 2nd int. conf. knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD',96); 1996. p. 226-31.
29. Alonso O., Baeza-Yates R. Design and implementation of relevance assessments using crowdsourcing. Adv Inform Retrieval Lect Notes Comput Sci 2011, 6611:153-164.
30. Snow R, O'Connor B, Jurafsky D, Ng AY. Cheap and fast-but is it good?: evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In: Proc. of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP '08). ACL; 2008. p. 254-63.
31. Maclean D.L., Heer J. Identifying medical terms in patient-authored text: a crowdsourcing-based approach. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013, 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001110.
32. Mason W., Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on amazon's mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods 2011, 44(1):1-23.
33. Lee JH. Crowdsourcing music similarity judgments using mechanical Turk. In: Proc. of the 11th international society for music information retrieval conference (ISMIR 2010), Utrecht, Netherlands; 2010. p. 183-8.
34. Bhattacharya S., Cantor M.N. Analysis of eligibility criteria representation in industry-standard clinical trial protocols. J Biomed Inform 2013, 46(5):805-813.