Dataset for Fifty Ways to Tag your Pubtypes: Multi-Tagger, a Set of Probabilistic Publication Type and Study Design Taggers to Support Biomedical Indexing and Evidence-Based Medicine

Dataset

Description

This dataset contains data from extreme-disagreement analysis described in paper “Aaron M. Cohen, Jodi Schneider, Yuanxi Fu, Marian S. McDonagh, Prerna Das, Arthur W. Holt, Neil R. Smalheiser, 2021, Fifty Ways to Tag your Pubtypes: Multi-Tagger, a Set of Probabilistic Publication Type and Study Design Taggers to Support Biomedical Indexing and Evidence-Based Medicine.” In this analysis, our team experts carried out an independent formal review and consensus process for extreme disagreements between MEDLINE indexing and model predictive scores. “Extreme disagreements” included two situations: (1) an abstract was MEDLINE indexed as a publication type but received low scores for this publication type, and (2) an abstract received high scores for a publication type but lacked the corresponding MEDLINE index term. “High predictive score” is defined as the top 100 high-scoring, and “low predictive score” is defined as the bottom 100 low-scoring. Three publication types were analyzed, which are CASE_CONTROL_STUDY, COHORT_STUDY, and CROSS_SECTIONAL_STUDY. Results were recorded in three Excel workbooks, named after the publication types: case_control_study.xlsx, cohort_study.xlsx, and cross_sectional_study.xlsx.

The analysis shows that, when the tagger gave a high predictive score (>0.9) on articles that lacked a corresponding MEDLINE indexing term, independent review suggested that the model assignment was correct in almost all cases (CROSS_SECTIONAL_STUDY (99%), CASE_CONTROL_STUDY (94.9%), and COHORT STUDY (92.2%)). Conversely, when articles received MEDLINE indexing but model predictive scores were very low (<0.1), independent review suggested that the model assignment was correct in the majority of cases: CASE_CONTROL_STUDY (85.4%), COHORT STUDY (76.3%), and CROSS_SECTIONAL_STUDY (53.6%).

Based on the extreme disagreement analysis, we identified a number of false-positives (FPs) and false-negatives (FNs). For case control study, there were 5 FPs and 14 FNs. For cohort study, there were 7 FPs and 22 FNs. For cross-sectional study, there were 1 FP and 45 FNs. We reviewed and grouped them based on patterns noticed, providing clues for further improving the models. This dataset reports the instances of FPs and FNs along with their categorizations.
Date made availableJul 20 2021
PublisherUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Keywords

  • evidence based medicine
  • machine learning
  • biomedical informatics
  • text mining

Cite this