Loading…
A Method for Computing Conceptual Distances between Medical Recommendations: Experiments in Modeling Medical Disagreement
Using natural language processing tools, we investigate the semantic differences in medical guidelines for three decision problems: breast cancer screening, lower back pain and hypertension management. The recommendation differences may cause undue variability in patient treatments and outcomes. The...
Saved in:
Published in: | Applied sciences 2021-03, Vol.11 (5), p.2045 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9017a4d5659a65baa67ba1eabc4ebecfce9c3d8277c0997bc7967aa5d9e9b8703 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9017a4d5659a65baa67ba1eabc4ebecfce9c3d8277c0997bc7967aa5d9e9b8703 |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 2045 |
container_title | Applied sciences |
container_volume | 11 |
creator | Hematialam, Hossein Garbayo, Luciana Gopalakrishnan, Seethalakshmi Zadrozny, Wlodek W. |
description | Using natural language processing tools, we investigate the semantic differences in medical guidelines for three decision problems: breast cancer screening, lower back pain and hypertension management. The recommendation differences may cause undue variability in patient treatments and outcomes. Therefore, having a better understanding of their causes can contribute to a discussion on possible remedies. We show that these differences in recommendations are highly correlated with the knowledge brought to the problem by different medical societies, as reflected in the conceptual vocabularies used by the different groups of authors. While this article is a case study using three sets of guidelines, the proposed methodology is broadly applicable. Technically, our method combines word embeddings and a novel graph-based similarity model for comparing collections of documents. For our main case study, we use the CDC summaries of the recommendations (very short documents) and full (long) texts of guidelines represented as bags of concepts. For the other case studies, we compare the full text of guidelines with their abstracts and tables, summarizing the differences between recommendations. The proposed approach is evaluated using different language models and different distance measures. In all the experiments, the results are highly statistically significant. We discuss the significance of the results, their possible extensions, and connections to other domains of knowledge. We conclude that automated methods, although not perfect, can be applicable to conceptual comparisons of different medical guidelines and can enable their analysis at scale. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3390/app11052045 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_0e52638de4f3475b80646857dfc18784</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_0e52638de4f3475b80646857dfc18784</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2524470540</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9017a4d5659a65baa67ba1eabc4ebecfce9c3d8277c0997bc7967aa5d9e9b8703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkU1LAzEQhhdRUKon_8CCR6kmm6-NN6lVC4ogeg6zyWzd0m7WJEX996ZWpXOZr3eeGZiiOKXkgjFNLmEYKCWiIlzsFUcVUXLMOFX7O_FhcRLjgmTTlNWUHBVf1-UjpjfvytaHcuJXwzp1_TxHvcUhrWFZ3nQxQc5i2WD6QOzzhOts7jyj9asV9g5S5_t4VU4_BwxdrqRYdlnnHS43tL-BjIJ5QNwojouDFpYRT379qHi9nb5M7scPT3ezyfXD2DLJ01gTqoA7IYUGKRoAqRqgCI3l2KBtLWrLXF0pZYnWqrFKSwUgnEbd1IqwUTHbcp2HhRnyeRC-jIfO_BR8mBsIqbNLNARFJVntkLeMK9HURHJZC-VaS2tV88w627KG4N_XGJNZ-HXo8_mmEhXnigi-2Xi-VdngYwzY_m-lxGxeZXZexb4BU4mHZw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2524470540</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Method for Computing Conceptual Distances between Medical Recommendations: Experiments in Modeling Medical Disagreement</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><creator>Hematialam, Hossein ; Garbayo, Luciana ; Gopalakrishnan, Seethalakshmi ; Zadrozny, Wlodek W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hematialam, Hossein ; Garbayo, Luciana ; Gopalakrishnan, Seethalakshmi ; Zadrozny, Wlodek W.</creatorcontrib><description>Using natural language processing tools, we investigate the semantic differences in medical guidelines for three decision problems: breast cancer screening, lower back pain and hypertension management. The recommendation differences may cause undue variability in patient treatments and outcomes. Therefore, having a better understanding of their causes can contribute to a discussion on possible remedies. We show that these differences in recommendations are highly correlated with the knowledge brought to the problem by different medical societies, as reflected in the conceptual vocabularies used by the different groups of authors. While this article is a case study using three sets of guidelines, the proposed methodology is broadly applicable. Technically, our method combines word embeddings and a novel graph-based similarity model for comparing collections of documents. For our main case study, we use the CDC summaries of the recommendations (very short documents) and full (long) texts of guidelines represented as bags of concepts. For the other case studies, we compare the full text of guidelines with their abstracts and tables, summarizing the differences between recommendations. The proposed approach is evaluated using different language models and different distance measures. In all the experiments, the results are highly statistically significant. We discuss the significance of the results, their possible extensions, and connections to other domains of knowledge. We conclude that automated methods, although not perfect, can be applicable to conceptual comparisons of different medical guidelines and can enable their analysis at scale.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2076-3417</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2076-3417</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/app11052045</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Automation ; Back pain ; Breast cancer ; Cancer screening ; Case studies ; Clinical medicine ; conceptual similarity ; disagreement ; Distance measurement ; Experiments ; graphs ; Guidelines ; Hypertension ; Knowledge ; Language ; Low back pain ; Mammography ; medical guidelines ; Medical research ; Medical screening ; Natural language processing ; Pain management ; Semantics ; Statistical analysis ; word embeddings</subject><ispartof>Applied sciences, 2021-03, Vol.11 (5), p.2045</ispartof><rights>2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9017a4d5659a65baa67ba1eabc4ebecfce9c3d8277c0997bc7967aa5d9e9b8703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9017a4d5659a65baa67ba1eabc4ebecfce9c3d8277c0997bc7967aa5d9e9b8703</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4844-9117</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2524470540/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2524470540?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,25732,27903,27904,36991,44569,74872</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hematialam, Hossein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garbayo, Luciana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gopalakrishnan, Seethalakshmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zadrozny, Wlodek W.</creatorcontrib><title>A Method for Computing Conceptual Distances between Medical Recommendations: Experiments in Modeling Medical Disagreement</title><title>Applied sciences</title><description>Using natural language processing tools, we investigate the semantic differences in medical guidelines for three decision problems: breast cancer screening, lower back pain and hypertension management. The recommendation differences may cause undue variability in patient treatments and outcomes. Therefore, having a better understanding of their causes can contribute to a discussion on possible remedies. We show that these differences in recommendations are highly correlated with the knowledge brought to the problem by different medical societies, as reflected in the conceptual vocabularies used by the different groups of authors. While this article is a case study using three sets of guidelines, the proposed methodology is broadly applicable. Technically, our method combines word embeddings and a novel graph-based similarity model for comparing collections of documents. For our main case study, we use the CDC summaries of the recommendations (very short documents) and full (long) texts of guidelines represented as bags of concepts. For the other case studies, we compare the full text of guidelines with their abstracts and tables, summarizing the differences between recommendations. The proposed approach is evaluated using different language models and different distance measures. In all the experiments, the results are highly statistically significant. We discuss the significance of the results, their possible extensions, and connections to other domains of knowledge. We conclude that automated methods, although not perfect, can be applicable to conceptual comparisons of different medical guidelines and can enable their analysis at scale.</description><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Cancer screening</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>conceptual similarity</subject><subject>disagreement</subject><subject>Distance measurement</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>graphs</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Hypertension</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Low back pain</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>medical guidelines</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Natural language processing</subject><subject>Pain management</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>word embeddings</subject><issn>2076-3417</issn><issn>2076-3417</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkU1LAzEQhhdRUKon_8CCR6kmm6-NN6lVC4ogeg6zyWzd0m7WJEX996ZWpXOZr3eeGZiiOKXkgjFNLmEYKCWiIlzsFUcVUXLMOFX7O_FhcRLjgmTTlNWUHBVf1-UjpjfvytaHcuJXwzp1_TxHvcUhrWFZ3nQxQc5i2WD6QOzzhOts7jyj9asV9g5S5_t4VU4_BwxdrqRYdlnnHS43tL-BjIJ5QNwojouDFpYRT379qHi9nb5M7scPT3ezyfXD2DLJ01gTqoA7IYUGKRoAqRqgCI3l2KBtLWrLXF0pZYnWqrFKSwUgnEbd1IqwUTHbcp2HhRnyeRC-jIfO_BR8mBsIqbNLNARFJVntkLeMK9HURHJZC-VaS2tV88w627KG4N_XGJNZ-HXo8_mmEhXnigi-2Xi-VdngYwzY_m-lxGxeZXZexb4BU4mHZw</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Hematialam, Hossein</creator><creator>Garbayo, Luciana</creator><creator>Gopalakrishnan, Seethalakshmi</creator><creator>Zadrozny, Wlodek W.</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4844-9117</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>A Method for Computing Conceptual Distances between Medical Recommendations: Experiments in Modeling Medical Disagreement</title><author>Hematialam, Hossein ; Garbayo, Luciana ; Gopalakrishnan, Seethalakshmi ; Zadrozny, Wlodek W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9017a4d5659a65baa67ba1eabc4ebecfce9c3d8277c0997bc7967aa5d9e9b8703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Cancer screening</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>conceptual similarity</topic><topic>disagreement</topic><topic>Distance measurement</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>graphs</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Hypertension</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Low back pain</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>medical guidelines</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Natural language processing</topic><topic>Pain management</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>word embeddings</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hematialam, Hossein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garbayo, Luciana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gopalakrishnan, Seethalakshmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zadrozny, Wlodek W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Applied sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hematialam, Hossein</au><au>Garbayo, Luciana</au><au>Gopalakrishnan, Seethalakshmi</au><au>Zadrozny, Wlodek W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Method for Computing Conceptual Distances between Medical Recommendations: Experiments in Modeling Medical Disagreement</atitle><jtitle>Applied sciences</jtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>2045</spage><pages>2045-</pages><issn>2076-3417</issn><eissn>2076-3417</eissn><abstract>Using natural language processing tools, we investigate the semantic differences in medical guidelines for three decision problems: breast cancer screening, lower back pain and hypertension management. The recommendation differences may cause undue variability in patient treatments and outcomes. Therefore, having a better understanding of their causes can contribute to a discussion on possible remedies. We show that these differences in recommendations are highly correlated with the knowledge brought to the problem by different medical societies, as reflected in the conceptual vocabularies used by the different groups of authors. While this article is a case study using three sets of guidelines, the proposed methodology is broadly applicable. Technically, our method combines word embeddings and a novel graph-based similarity model for comparing collections of documents. For our main case study, we use the CDC summaries of the recommendations (very short documents) and full (long) texts of guidelines represented as bags of concepts. For the other case studies, we compare the full text of guidelines with their abstracts and tables, summarizing the differences between recommendations. The proposed approach is evaluated using different language models and different distance measures. In all the experiments, the results are highly statistically significant. We discuss the significance of the results, their possible extensions, and connections to other domains of knowledge. We conclude that automated methods, although not perfect, can be applicable to conceptual comparisons of different medical guidelines and can enable their analysis at scale.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><doi>10.3390/app11052045</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4844-9117</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2076-3417 |
ispartof | Applied sciences, 2021-03, Vol.11 (5), p.2045 |
issn | 2076-3417 2076-3417 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_0e52638de4f3475b80646857dfc18784 |
source | Publicly Available Content (ProQuest) |
subjects | Automation Back pain Breast cancer Cancer screening Case studies Clinical medicine conceptual similarity disagreement Distance measurement Experiments graphs Guidelines Hypertension Knowledge Language Low back pain Mammography medical guidelines Medical research Medical screening Natural language processing Pain management Semantics Statistical analysis word embeddings |
title | A Method for Computing Conceptual Distances between Medical Recommendations: Experiments in Modeling Medical Disagreement |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T02%3A32%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Method%20for%20Computing%20Conceptual%20Distances%20between%20Medical%20Recommendations:%20Experiments%20in%20Modeling%20Medical%20Disagreement&rft.jtitle=Applied%20sciences&rft.au=Hematialam,%20Hossein&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=2045&rft.pages=2045-&rft.issn=2076-3417&rft.eissn=2076-3417&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/app11052045&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2524470540%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9017a4d5659a65baa67ba1eabc4ebecfce9c3d8277c0997bc7967aa5d9e9b8703%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2524470540&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |