Results of competency questions evaluation using MS Ontology compared to manual search on PubMed.
收藏Figshare2015-12-03 更新2026-04-29 收录
下载链接:
https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/_Results_of_competency_questions_evaluation_using_MS_Ontology_compared_to_manual_search_on_PubMed_/1304743
下载链接
链接失效反馈官方服务:
资源简介:
Results are shown as the number of all retrieved documents and the “validated ones” based in manual review of the documents by the expert in order to ensure they were covering the topics of the competency questions. We define as the gold standard for calculating sensitivity, the expert search in PubMed using key words (related with AND) and the manual revision of the abstracts. In order to calculate ‘Sensitivity’ and ‘Specificity’ of MS Ontology based searches, true positives are defined as the number of ‘validated documents’ retrieved by a MS Ontology based search; false positive are the number of documents retrieved by MS Ontology based search but were not considered relevant in expert review and False negatives are the number of documents retrieved by ‘expert based searches’ in PubMed but were not retrieved by MS Ontology. See S1 Methods for details of the searches.Results of competency questions evaluation using MS Ontology compared to manual search on PubMed.
创建时间:
2015-12-03



