The Unified Medical Language System at 30 Years and How It Is Used and Published: Systematic Review and Content Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) has been a critical tool in biomedical and health informatics, and the year 2021 marks its 30th anniversary. The UMLS brings together many broadly used vocabularies and standards in the biomedical field to facilitate interoperability among different computer systems and applications. OBJECTIVE: Despite its longevity, there is no comprehensive publication analysis of the use of the UMLS. Thus, this review and analysis is conducted to provide an overview of the UMLS and its use in English-language peer-reviewed publications, with the objective of providing a comprehensive understanding of how the UMLS has been used in English-language peer-reviewed publications over the last 30 years. METHODS: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and the Nursing & Allied Health Database were used to search for studies. The primary search strategy was as follows: UMLS was used as a Medical Subject Headings term or a keyword or appeared in the title or abstract. Only English-language publications were considered. The publications were screened first, then coded and categorized iteratively, following the grounded theory. The review process followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 943 publications were included in the final analysis. Moreover, 32 publications were categorized into 2 categories; hence the total number of publications before duplicates are removed is 975. After analysis and categorization of the publications, UMLS was found to be used in the following emerging themes or areas (the number of publications and their respective percentages are given in parentheses): natural language processing (230/975, 23.6%), information retrieval (125/975, 12.8%), terminology study (90/975, 9.2%), ontology and modeling (80/975, 8.2%), medical subdomains (76/975, 7.8%), other language studies (53/975, 5.4%), artificial intelligence tools and applications (46/975, 4.7%), patient care (35/975, 3.6%), data mining and knowledge discovery (25/975, 2.6%), medical education (20/975, 2.1%), degree-related theses (13/975, 1.3%), digital library (5/975, 0.5%), and the UMLS itself (150/975, 15.4%), as well as the UMLS for other purposes (27/975, 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The UMLS has been used successfully in patient care, medical education, digital libraries, and software development, as originally planned, as well as in degree-related theses, the building of artificial intelligence tools, data mining and knowledge discovery, foundational work in methodology, and middle layers that may lead to advanced products. Natural language processing, the UMLS itself, and information retrieval are the 3 most common themes that emerged among the included publications. The results, although largely related to academia, demonstrate that UMLS achieves its intended uses successfully, in addition to achieving uses broadly beyond its original intentions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».