Improving Endpoint Detection to Support Automated Systematic Reviews

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Authors of biomedical articles use comparison sentences to communicate the findings of a study, and to compare the results of the current study with earlier studies. The Claim Framework defines a comparison claim as a sentence that includes at least two entities that are being compared, and an endpoint that captures the way in which the entities are compared. Although automated methods have been developed to identify comparison sentences from the text, identifying the role that a specific noun plays (i.e. entity or endpoint) is much more difficult. Automated methods have been successful at identifying the second entity, but classification models were unable to clearly differentiate between the first entity and the endpoint. We show empirically that establishing if head noun is an amount or measure provides a statistically significant improvement that increases the endpoint precision from 0.42 to 0.56 on longer and from 0.51 to 0.58 on shorter sentences and recall from 0.64 to 0.71 on longer and from 0.69 to 0.74 on shorter sentences. The differences were not statistically significant for the second compared entity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1900-1909
Number of pages10
JournalAMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings
StatePublished - 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Improving Endpoint Detection to Support Automated Systematic Reviews'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this