Knowledge-Driven Paper Retrieval to Support Updating of Clinical Guidelines

A Use Case on PubMed
  • Veruska ZamborliniEmail author
  • Qing Hu
  • Zhisheng Huang
  • Marcos da Silveira
  • Cedric Pruski
  • Annette ten Teije
  • Frank van Harmelen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10096)


Clinical Guidelines are important knowledge resources for medical decision making. They provide clinical recommendations based on a collection of research findings with respect to a specific disease. Since, new findings are regularly published, CGs are also expected to be regularly updated. However, selecting and analysing medical publications require a huge human efforts, even when these publications are mostly regrouped and into repositories (e.g., MEDLINE database) and accessible via a search engine (e.g. PubMed). Automatically detecting those research findings from a medical search engine such as PubMed supports the guideline updating process. A simple search method is to select the medical terms that appear in the conclusions of the guideline to generate a query to search for new evidences. However, some challenges rise in this method: how to select the important terms, besides how to consider background knowledge that may be missing or not explicitly stated in those conclusions. In this paper we apply a knowledge model that formally describes elements such as actions and their effects to investigate (i) if it favors selecting the medical terms to compose queries and (ii) if a search enhanced with background knowledge can provide better result than other methods. This work explores a knowledge-driven approach for detecting new evidences relevant for the clinical guideline update process. Based on the outcomes of two experiments, we found that this approach can improve the recall by retrieving more relevant evidences than previous methods.


Breast Reconstruction Semantic Distance Alternative Description SPARQL Query Silicon Implant 
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.


  1. 1.
    Reinders, R., ten Teije, A., Huang, Z.: Finding evidence for updates in medical guideline. In: Proceedings of HEALTHINF 2015, Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu, Q., Huang, Z., ten Teije, A., van Harmelen, F.: Detecting new evidence for evidence-based guidelines using a semantic distance method. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIME 2015) (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu, Q., Huang, Z., ten Teije, A., van Harmelen, F., Marshall, M., Dekker, A.: A topic-centric approach to detecting new evidences for evidence-based medical guidelines. In: Proceedings of HEALTHINF 2016, Rome (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zamborlini, V., Hoekstra, R., Silveira, M., Pruski, C., Teije, A.: Generalizing the detection of internal and external interactions in clinical guidelines. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Health Informatics (HEALTHINF 2016), Rome, Italy (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NABON: Guideline for the treatment of breast carcinoma 2004. Technical report, Nationaal Borstkanker Overleg Nederland (NABON) (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NABON: Breast cancer, dutch guideline, version 2.0. Technical report, Integraal kankercentrum Netherland, Nationaal Borstkanker Overleg Nederland (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zamborlini, V., da Silveira, M., Pruski, C., ten Teije, A., van Harmelen, F.: Analyzing recommendations interactions in clinical guidelines: impact of action type hierarchies and causation beliefs. In: AI in Medicine (AIME 2015), pp. 317–326 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iruetaguena, A., Adeva, J.G., Pikatza, J., Segundo, U., Buenestado, D., Barrena, R.: Automatic retrieval of current evidence to support update of bibliography in clinical guidelines. Expert Syst. Appl. 40, 2081–2091 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vernooij, R.W.M., Sanabria, A.J., Sola, I., Alonso-Coello, P., Martinez Garcia, L.: Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks. Implementation Sci. IS 9(1), 3 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    SIGN: British guideline on the management of asthma. A clinical national guideline, British Thoracic Society (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ten Teije, A., Marcos, M., Balser, M., van Croonenborg, J., Duelli, C., Van Harmelen, F., Lucas, P., Miksch, S., Reif, W., Rosenbrand, K., Seyfang, A.: Improving medical protocols by formal methods. AI Med. 36(3), 193–209 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker, M., Neugebauer, E.A., Eikermann, M.: Partial updating of clinical practice guidelines often makes more sense than full updating: a systematic review on methods and the development of an updating procedure. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 67(1), 33–45 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vandvik, P.O., Brandt, L., Alonso-Coello, P., Treweek, S., Akl, E.A., Kristiansen, A., Fog-Heen, A., Agoritsas, T., Montori, V.M., Guyatt, G.: Creating clinical practice guidelines we can trust, use, and share a new era is imminent (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uhlig, K., Berns, J.S., Carville, S., Chan, W., Cheung, M., Guyatt, G.H., Hart, A., Lewis, S.Z., Tonelli, M., Webster, A.C., Wilt, T.J., Kasiske, B.L.: Recommendations for kidney disease guideline updating: a report by the KDIGO Methods Committee (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang, Z., Hu, Q., Teije, A., Harmelen, F.: Identifying evidence quality for updating evidence-based medical guidelines. In: Riaño, D., Lenz, R., Miksch, S., Peleg, M., Reichert, M., Teije, A. (eds.) KR4HC 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9485, pp. 51–64. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26585-8_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boudin, F., Nie, J.Y., Dawes, M.: Clinical information retrieval using document and PICO structure. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 822–830 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Znaidi, E., Tamine, L., Latiri, C.: Answering PICO clinical questions: a semantic graph-based approach. In: Holmes, J.H., Bellazzi, R., Sacchi, L., Peek, N. (eds.) AIME 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9105, pp. 232–237. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19551-3_30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Veruska Zamborlini
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Qing Hu
    • 1
  • Zhisheng Huang
    • 1
  • Marcos da Silveira
    • 2
  • Cedric Pruski
    • 2
  • Annette ten Teije
    • 1
  • Frank van Harmelen
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology - LISTEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations