journal article·2023-09-23Open access

Document Difficulty Aspects for Medical Practitioners: Enhancing Information Retrieval in Personalized Search Engines

Sameh Frihat, Catharina Lena Beckmann, Eva Maria Hartmann, Norbert Fuhr

Applied Sciences· Volume 13· Issue 19

Abstract

Timely and relevant information enables clinicians to make informed decisions about patient care outcomes. However, discovering related and understandable information from the vast medical literature is challenging. To address this problem, we aim to enable the development of search engines that meet the needs of medical practitioners by incorporating text difficulty features. We collected a dataset of 209 scientific research abstracts from different medical fields, available in both English and German. To determine the difficulty aspects of readability and technical level of each abstract, 216 medical experts annotated the dataset. We used a pre-trained BERT model, fine-tuned to our dataset, to develop a regression model predicting those difficulty features of abstracts. To highlight the strength of this approach, the model was compared to readability formulas currently in use. Analysis of the dataset revealed that German abstracts are more technically complex and less readable than their English counterparts. Our baseline model showed greater efficacy than current readability formulas in predicting domain-specific readability aspects. Conclusion: Incorporating these text difficulty aspects into the search engine will provide healthcare professionals with reliable and efficient information retrieval tools. Additionally, the dataset can serve as a starting point for future research.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Text Readability and Simplification · Health Literacy and Information Accessibility

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Information Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, 47057 Duisburg, Germany

Department of Computer Science, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Dortmund, 44227 Dortmund, Germany

Funding

DFG Research Training Group 2535 · University of Duisburg-Essen

References (46)

Show source-provided references
1. Relationships of Measures of Interest, Prior Knowledge, and Readability to Comprehension of Expository Passages
2. Vydiswaran, V.V., Mei, Q., Hanauer, D.A., and Zheng, K. (November, January 30). Mining consumer health vocabulary from community-generated text. Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, American Medical Informatics Association, San Diego, CA, USA.
3. Chall, J. (1958). Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application, Bureau of Educational Research Monographs.
4. Hätty, A., Schlechtweg, D., Dorna, M., and im Walde, S.S. (2020, January 5–10). Predicting degrees of technicality in automatic terminology extraction. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, London, UK.10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.258 ↗
5. Using the SMOG formula to revise a health-related document10.1080/19325037.2008.10599016 ↗
6. Combining readability formulas and machine learning for reader-oriented evaluation of online health resources10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3077073 ↗
7. ShARe/CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2013, Task 3: Information retrieval to address patients’ questions when reading clinical reports
8. Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: A retrospective quantitative analysis10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037994 ↗
9. Outcome of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in refractory multiple myeloma10.1002/cncr.30770 ↗
10. Mechanisms of fibrosis: Therapeutic translation for fibrotic disease10.1038/nm.2807 ↗
11. Information retrieval for education: Making search engines language aware
12. Tomažič, T., and Čelofiga, A.K. (2022). The Role of Different Behavioral and Psychosocial Factors in the Context of Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancers’ Misuse. Healthcare, 10.10.3390/healthcare10060972 ↗
13. Frihat, S. (2022, January 20–24). Context-sensitive, personalized search at the Point of Care. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Cologne, Germany.10.1145/3529372.3530945 ↗
14. Readability of influenza information online: Implications for consumer health10.1016/j.ajic.2019.04.178 ↗
15. Klare, G.R. (1988). Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future, International Reading Association.
16. Yan, X., Song, D., and Li, X. (2006, January 13–16). Concept-based document readability in domain specific information retrieval. Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Arlington, VA, USA.10.1145/1183614.1183692 ↗
17. An introduction to information retrieval
18. Selvaraj, P., Burugari, V.K., Sumathi, D., Nayak, R.K., and Tripathy, R. (2019, January 12–14). Ontology based recommendation system for domain specific seekers. Proceedings of the 2019 Third International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC), Palladam, India.10.1109/I-SMAC47947.2019.9032634 ↗
19. Jameel, S., and Qian, X. (2012, January 22–24). An unsupervised technical readability ranking model by building a conceptual terrain in LSI. Proceedings of the 2012 Eighth International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grids, Beijing, China.10.1109/SKG.2012.20 ↗
20. Palotti, J., Goeuriot, L., Zuccon, G., and Hanbury, A. (2016, January 17–21). Ranking health web pages with relevance and understandability. Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Pisa, Italy.10.1145/2911451.2914741 ↗
21. van der Sluis, F., and van den Broek, E.L. (2010, January 18–21). Using complexity measures in information retrieval. Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Information Interaction in Context, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.10.1145/1840784.1840843 ↗
22. Kane, L., Carthy, J., and Dunnion, J. (2006, January 4–10). Readability applied to information retrieval. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Retrieval, London, UK.10.1007/11735106_56 ↗
23. Textual complexity as an indicator of document relevance10.1007/978-3-030-72240-1_42 ↗
24. Lopes, C.T. (2022). Health Information Retrieval—State of the art report. arXiv.
25. Fung, A.C.H., Lee, M.H.L., Leung, L., Chan, I.H.Y., and Kenneth, W. (2023). Internet Health Resources on Nocturnal Enuresis—A Readability, Quality and Accuracy Analysis. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg.10.1055/a-2156-4833 ↗
26. DuBay, W.H. (2004). The Principles of Readability, Impact Information. Online Submission.
27. SMOG grading-a new readability formula
28. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and recommendations10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009 ↗
29. Readability of patient and family education materials on pediatric surgical association websites10.1007/s00383-023-05446-6 ↗
30. A formula for predicting readability: Instructions
31. Public health communication in time of crisis: Readability of on-line COVID-19 information10.1017/dmp.2020.151 ↗
32. Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: A systematic review of the literature10.2196/jmir.4018 ↗
33. Readability and quality of wikipedia pages on neurosurgical topics10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.01.021 ↗
34. Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: A systematic review10.2196/jmir.5729 ↗
35. Zowalla, R., Pfeifer, D., and Wetter, T. (2023). Readability and topics of the German Health Web: Exploratory study and text analysis. PLoS ONE, 18.10.1371/journal.pone.0281582 ↗
36. How Difficult are Complex Verbs? Evidence from German, Dutch and English10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.679 ↗
37. How much is too much reading for medical students? Assigned reading and reading rates at one medical school10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822579fc ↗
38. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 ↗
39. Hockett, C.F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics, The Macmillan Company.
40. Nonword repetition by bilingual learners of German: The role of language-specific complexity
41. Gu, Y., Tinn, R., Cheng, H., Lucas, M., Usuyama, N., Liu, X., Naumann, T., Gao, J., and Poon, H. (2020). Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processing. arXiv.10.1145/3458754 ↗
42. Deepset-AI (2023, August 01). State-of-the-Art German BERT Model Trained from Scratch. Available online: https://www.deepset.ai/german-bert.
43. Worrall, A.P., Connolly, M.J., O’Neill, A., O’Doherty, M., Thornton, K.P., McNally, C., McConkey, S.J., and De Barra, E. (2020). Readability of online COVID-19 health information: A comparison between four English speaking countries. BMC Public Health, 20.10.1186/s12889-020-09710-5 ↗
44. Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan10.1111/bcp.13912 ↗
45. Assessing Readability of FDA-Required Labeling for Breast Implants10.1093/asjof/ojad027.009 ↗
46. Readability of online patient education material for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A cross-sectional health literacy study10.1016/j.puhe.2020.05.041 ↗