Advertisement

Information Retrieval and Digital Libraries

Chapter

Abstract

After reading this chapter, you should know the answers to these questions:

Keywords

Digital Library Resource Description Framework Mean Average Precision Unify Medical Language System Portable Document Format 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Akerkar, R. (2009). Foundations of the semantic Web: XML, RDF & ontology. Oxford: Alpha Science International Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, K. (2006). Open access: Implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94, 253–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous. (2007). Stopwords. In Anonymous (Ed.), PubMed Help. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine.Google Scholar
  4. Aronson, A., Mork, J., Gay, C., Humphrey, S.M., & Rogers, W. (2004). The NLM indexing initiative’s medical text indexer. MEDINFO 2004. In Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress on Medical Informatics, San Francisco (pp. 268–272). Retrieved from http://ii.nlm.nih.gov/resources/aronson-medinfo04.wheader.pdf
  5. Bartlett, J., & Toms, E. (2005). Developing a protocol for bioinformatics analysis: An integrated information and behavior task analysis approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berners-Lee, T., Cailliau, R., Luotonen, A., Nielsen, H., & Secret, A. (1994). The world-wide web. Communications of the ACM, 37, 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Besser, H. (2002). The next stage: moving from isolated digital collections to interoperable digital libraries. First Monday, 7(6). Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_6/besser/
  8. Björk, B., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Guðnason, C. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: situation 2009. PLoS ONE, 5(6), e11273. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011273
  9. Bodenreider, O. (2004). The unified medical language system (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Research, 32, D267–D270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgman, C. (1999). What are digital libraries? Competing visions. Information Processing and Management, 35, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 107–117. Retrieved from http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf
  12. Charen, T. (1976). MEDLARS indexing manual, part I: Bibliographic principles and descriptive indexing, 1977. Springfield: National Technical Information Service.Google Scholar
  13. Charen, T. (1983). MEDLARS indexing manual, part II. Springfield: National Technical Information Service.Google Scholar
  14. Cimino, J., & delFiol, G. (2007). Infobuttons and point of care access to knowledge. In R. Greenes (Ed.), Clinical decision support: The road ahead (pp. 345–371). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, A., Stavri, P., & Hersh, W. (2004). A categorization and analysis of the criticisms of evidence-based medicine. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 73, 35–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coletti, M., & Bleich, H. (2001). Medical subject headings used to search the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 8, 317–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Covell, D., Uman, G., & Manning, P. (1985). Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Annals of Internal Medicine, 103, 596–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darmoni, S., Leroy, J., Baudic, F., Douyere, M., Piot, J., & Thirion, B. (2000). CISMeF: A structured health resource guide. Methods of Information in Medicine, 9, 30–35.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, K. (2010). Physicians and their use of information: A survey comparison between the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 99, 88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dean, J., & Ghemawat, S. (2008). MapReduce: Simplified data processing on large clusters. Communications of the ACM, 51(1), 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeAngelis, C., Drazen, J., Frizelle, F., Haug, C., Hoey, J., Horton, R., & VanDerWeyden, M. (2005). Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293, 2927–2929.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DeBakey, M. (1991). The national library of medicine: Evolution of a premier information center. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 1252–1258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond, G., & Kaul, S. (2008). The disconnect between practice guidelines and clinical practice – stressed out. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 1817–1819.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DiCenso, A., Bayley, L., & Haynes, R. (2009). ACP Journal Club. Editorial: Accessing preappraised evidence: Fine-tuning the 5S model into a 6S model. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(6), JC3-2. JC3-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Drazen, J., & Curfman, G. (2004). Public access to biomedical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 1343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Egan, D., Remde, J., Gomez, L., Landauer, T., Eberhardt, J., & Lochbaum, C. (1989). Formative design-evaluation of superbook. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 7, 30–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ely, J., Osheroff, J., Ebell, M., Bergus, G., Levy, B., Chambliss, M., & Evans, E. (1999). Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. British Medical Journal, 319, 358–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ely, J., Osheroff, J., Ebell, M., Chambliss, M., Vinson, D., Stevermer, J., & Pifer, E. (2002). Obstacles to answering doctors’ questions about patient care with evidence: Qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 324, 710–713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eysenbach, G., & Kohler, C. (2004). Health-related searches on the internet. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2946.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eysenbach, G., Su, E., & Diepgen, T. (1999). Shopping around the internet today and tomorrow: Towards the millennium of cybermedicine. British Medical Journal, 319, 1294–1298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E.-R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2691–2700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ferguson, T. (2002). From patients to end users: Quality of online patient networks needs more attention than quality of online health information. British Medical Journal, 324, 555–556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ferrucci, D., Brown, E., Chu-Carroll, J., et al. (2010). Building Watson: an overview of the DeepQA Project. AI Magazine, 31(3), 59–79. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2303 Google Scholar
  35. Fiszman, M., Rindflesch, T., & Kilicoglu, H. (2004). Summarization of an online medical encyclopedia. MEDINFO 2004. In Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress on Medical Informatics (pp. 506–510). San Francisco.Google Scholar
  36. Foulonneau, M., & Riley, J. (2008). Metadata for digital resources: Implementation, systems design and interoperability. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Fox, C. (1992). Lexical analysis and stop lists. In W. Frakes & R. Baeza-Yates (Eds.), Information retrieval: Data structures and algorithms (pp. 102–130). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Fox, S. (2011). Health topics. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_HealthTopics.pdf
  39. Frakes, W. (1992). Stemming algorithms. In W. Frankes & R. Baeza-Yates (Eds.), Information retrieval: Data structures and algorithms (pp. 131–160). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Funk, M., & Reid, C. (1983). Indexing consistency in MEDLINE. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 71, 176–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Galperin, M., & Cochrane, G. (2011). The 2011 nucleic acids research database issue and the online molecular biology database collection. Nucleic Acids Research, 39(suppl1), D1–D6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900–901. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html Google Scholar
  43. Gorman, P., & Helfand, M. (1995). Information seeking in primary care: how physicians choose which clinical questions to pursue and which to leave unanswered. Medical Decision Making, 15, 113–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harter, S. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 602–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Haynes, R., McKibbon, K., Walker, C., Ryan, N., Fitzgerald, D., & Ramsden, M. (1990). Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. Annals of Internal Medicine, 112, 78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Haynes, R., Wilczynski, N., McKibbon, K., Walker, C., & Sinclair, J. (1994). Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 1, 447–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hersh, W. (1994). Relevance and retrieval evaluation: Perspectives from medicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hersh, W. (1999). “A world of knowledge at your fingertips”: the promise, reality, and future directions of on-line information retrieval. Academic Medicine, 74, 240–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hersh, W. (2001). Interactivity at the text retrieval conference (TREC). Information Processing and Management, 37, 365–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hersh, W. (2009). Information retrieval: A health and biomedical perspective (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Hersh, W., & Hickam, D. (1995). An evaluation of interactive Boolean and natural language searching with an on-line medical textbook. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 478–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hersh, W., & Hickam, D. (1998). How well do physicians use electronic information retrieval systems? A framework for investigation and review of the literature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1347–1352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hersh, W., & Rindfleisch, T. (2000). Electronic publishing of scholarly communication in the biomedical sciences. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 7, 324–325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hersh, W., & Voorhees, E. (2009). TREC genomics special issue overview. Information Retrieval, 12, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hersh, W., Pentecost, J., & Hickam, D. (1996). A task-oriented approach to information retrieval evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hersh, W., Crabtree, M., Hickam, D., et al. (2002). Factors associated with success for searching MEDLINE and applying evidence to answer clinical questions. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 9, 283–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hersh, W., Bhupatiraju, R., Ross, L., Johnson, P., Cohen, A., & Kraemer, D. (2006). Enhancing access to the bibliome: the TREC 2004 Genomics Track. Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, 1, 3. Retrieved from http://www.j-biomed-discovery.com/content/1/1/3
  58. Humphreys, B., Lindberg, D., Schoolman, H., & Barnett, G. (1998). The unified medical language system: An informatics research collaboration. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 5, 1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jadad, A. (1999). Promoting partnerships: Challenges for the internet age. British Medical Journal, 319, 761–764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kulkarni, A., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. (2009). Comparisons of citations in web of science, Scopus, and Google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 1092–1096.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Laine, C., Horton, R., DeAngelis, C., Drazen, J., Frizelle, F., Godlee, F., & Verheugt, F. (2007). Clinical trial registration: Looking back and moving ahead. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 93–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Laurent, M., & Vickers, T. (2009). Seeking health information online: Does Wikipedia matter? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 16, 471–479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 411, 521.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lesk, M. (2005). Understanding digital libraries (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  65. Lin, J., & Dyer, C. (2010). Data-intensive text processing with MapReduce. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
  66. Lindberg, D., & Humphreys, B. (2005). 2015 – The future of medical libraries. The New England Journal of Medicine, 352, 1067–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Marcetich, J., Rappaport, M., & Kotzin, S. (2004). Indexing consistency in MEDLINE. MLA 04 Abstracts (pp. 10–11). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  68. McGlynn, E. A., Asch, S. M., Adams, J., et al. (2003). The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. The New England journal of medicine, 348, 2635–2645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McKibbon, K., & Fridsma, D. (2006). Effectiveness of clinician-selected electronic information resources for answering primary care physicians’ information needs. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 13, 653–659.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McKibbon, K., Haynes, R., Dilks, C. W., Ramsden, M., Ryan, N., Baker, L., & Fitzgerald, D. (1990). How good are clinical MEDLINE searches? A comparative study of clinical end-user and librarian searches. Computers and Biomedical Research, 23(6), 583–593.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miles, W. (1982). A history of the national library of medicine: The Nation’s treasury of medical knowledge. Bethesda: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  72. Moed, H. (2007). The effect of open access on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv’s condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2047–2054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mynatt, B., Leventhal, L., Instone, K., Farhat, J., & Rohlman, D. (1992). Hypertext or book: Which is better for answering questions? Proceedings of Computer-Human Interface, 92, 19–25.Google Scholar
  74. Nicholson, D. (2006). An evaluation of the quality of consumer health information on Wikipedia. Portland: Capstone, Oregon Health & Science University. Retrieved from http://www.ohsu.edu/dmice/people/students/theses/2006/upload/Nicholson_CapstoneFinal06.pdf
  75. Paskin, N. (2006). The DOI handbook. Oxford: International DOI Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/DOIHandbook-v4-4.pdf
  76. Pluye, P., & Grad, R. (2004). How information retrieval technology may impact on physician practice: An organizational case study in family medicine. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 10, 413–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rothenberg, J. (1999). Ensuring the longevity of digital information, from http://www.clir.org/pubs/archives/ensuring.pdf
  78. Salton, G. (1991). Developments in automatic text retrieval. Science, 253, 974–980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Salton, G., & McGill, M. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  80. Salton, G., Fox, E., & Wu, H. (1983). Extended Boolean information retrieval. Communications of the ACM, 26, 1022–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sayers, E., Barrett, T., Benson, D., Bolton, E., Bryant, S., Canese, K., & DiCuccio, M. (2011). Database resources of the national center for biotechnology information. Nucleic Acids Research, 39(suppl1), D38–D51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Silberg, W., Lundberg, G., & Musacchio, R. (1997). Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: Caveat lector et viewor – let the reader and viewer beware. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1244–1245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sollins, K., & Masinter, L. (1994). Functional requirements for uniform resource names: Internet Engineering Task Force. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1737.txt
  84. Sox, H. (2009). Medical journal editing: who shall pay? Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 68–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stanfill, M., Williams, M., Fenton, S., Jenders, R., & Hersh, W. (2010). A systematic literature review of automated clinical coding and classification systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 17, 646–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Straus, S., Richardson, W., Glasziou, P., & Haynes, R. (2005). Evidence based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (3rd ed.). New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  87. Swanson, D. (1988). Historical note: Information retrieval and the future of an illusion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tang, P., Newcomb, C., Gorden, S., & Kreider, N. (1997). Meeting the information needs of patients: results from a patient focus group. Proceedings of the 1997 AMIA Annual Fall Symposium (pp. 672–676), Nashville.Google Scholar
  89. Taylor, H. (2010). “Cyberchondriacson the rise? Those who go online for healthcare information continues to increase. Rochester: Harris Interactive. Retrieved from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/HI-Harris-Poll-Cyberchondriacs-2010-08-04.pdf
  90. van Rijsbergen, C. (1979). Information retrieval. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  91. Voorhees, E., & Harman, D. (Eds.). (2005). TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. Voorhees, E., & Hersh, W. (2012). Overview of the TREC 2012 Medical Records Track. The Twenty-First Text REtrieval Conference proceedings (TREC 2012). Gaithersburg: National Institute for Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
  93. Voorhees, E. Tong, R. (2011). Overview of the TREC 2011 Medical Records Track. The Twentieth Text REtrieval Conference proceedings (TREC 2011). Gaithersburg: National Institute for Standards and Technology.Google Scholar
  94. Weibel, S., & Koch, T. (2000). The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: mission, current activities, and future directions. D-Lib Magazine, 6. Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december00/weibel/12weibel.html
  95. Wennberg, J. (2010). Tracking medicine: A Researcher’s quest to understand health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Westbrook, J., Coiera, E., & Gosling, A. (2005). Do online information retrieval systems help experienced clinicians answer clinical questions? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 12, 315–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wildemuth, B., deBliek, R., Friedman, C., & File, D. (1995). Medical students’ personal knowledge, searching proficiency, and database use in problem solving. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46, 590–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zarin, D., Tse, T., Williams, R., Califf, R., & Ide, N. (2011). The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364, 852–860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zarin, D., Tse, T., Williams, R., Califf, R., & Ide, N. (2011). The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364, 852–860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zarin, D., Tse, T., Williams, R., Califf, R., & Ide, N. (2011). The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364, 852–860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical EpidemiologyOregon Health and Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations