Cited by 83Advanced Text Analysis TechniquesBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesTopic Modeling

A semantic graph-based approach to biomedical summarisation

Plaza, Laura, Díaz, Alberto, Gervás, Pablo·2011·Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Abstract

Objective Access to the vast body of research literature that is available in biomedicine and related fields may be improved by automatic summarisation. This paper presents a method for summarising biomedical scientific literature that takes into consideration the characteristics of the domain and the type of documents.Methods To address the problem of identifying salient sentences in biomedical texts, concepts and relations derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) are arranged to construct a semantic graph that represents the document. A degree-based clustering algorithm is then used to identify different themes or topics within the text. Different heuristics for sentence selection, intended to generate different types of summaries, are tested. A real document case is drawn up to illustrate how the method works.Results A large-scale evaluation is performed using the recall-oriented understudy for gisting-evaluation (ROUGE) metrics. The results are compared with those achieved by three well-known summarisers (two research prototypes and a commercial application) and two baselines. Our method significantly outperforms all summarisers and baselines. The best of our heuristics achieves an improvement in performance of almost 7.7 percentage units in the ROUGE-1 score over the LexRank summariser (0.7862 versus 0.7302). A qualitative analysis of the summaries also shows that our method succeeds in identifying sentences that cover the main topic of the document and also considers other secondary or "satellite" information that might be relevant to the user.Conclusion The method proposed is proved to be an efficient approach to biomedical literature summarisation, which confirms that the use of concepts rather than terms can be very useful in automatic summarisation, especially when dealing with highly specialised domains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.artmed.2011.06.005

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Plaza, L., Díaz, A., & Gervás, P.
Affiliations
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
Venue
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
0933-3657 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158780731
Cited by
83
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
semantic networks, UMLS concepts, topic extraction, ROUGE evaluation, LexRank
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Natural Language Processing, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Periodicals as Topic, Semantics, Subject Headings, Cluster Analysis, Information Storage and Retrieval, Unified Medical Language System

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review