Advertisement

Choices in Knowledge-Base Retrieval for Consumer Health Search

  • JimmyEmail author
  • Guido Zuccon
  • Bevan Koopman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10772)

Abstract

This paper investigates how retrieval using knowledge bases can be effectively translated to the consumer health search (CHS) domain. We posit that using knowledge bases for query reformulation may help to overcome some of the challenges in CHS. However, translating and implementing such approaches is nontrivial in CHS as it involves many design choices. We empirically evaluated the impact these different choices had on retrieval effectiveness. A state-of-the-art knowledge-base retrieval model—the Entity Query Feature Expansion model—was used to evaluate the following design choices: which knowledge base to use (specialised vs. generic), how to construct the knowledge base, how to extract entities from queries and map them to entities in the knowledge base, what part of the knowledge base to use for query expansion, and if to augment the KB search process with relevance feedback. While knowledge base retrieval has been proposed as a solution for CHS, this paper delves into the finer details of doing this effectively, highlighting both pitfalls and payoffs. It aims to provide some lessons to others in advancing the state-of-the-art in CHS.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Jimmy is sponsored by the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan/LPDP). Guido Zuccon is the recipient of an Australian Research Council DECRA Research Fellowship (DE180101579).

References

  1. 1.
    Bendersky, M., Metzler, D., Croft, W.: Effective query formulation with multiple information sources. In: WSDM 2012, pp. 443–452 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dalton, J., Dietz, L., Allan, J.: Entity query feature expansion using knowledge base links. In: SIGIR 2014, pp. 365–374 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Díaz-Galiano, M., Martín-Valdivia, M., Ureña-López, L.: Query expansion with a medical ontology to improve a multimodal information retrieval system. JCBM 39(4), 396–403 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jimmy, Zuccon, G., Koopman, B.: Boosting titles does not generally improve retrieval effectiveness. In: ADCS 2016, pp. 25–32 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keselman, A., Tse, T., Crowell, J., Browne, A., Ngo, L., Zeng, Q.: Relating consumer knowledge of health terms and health concepts. In: AMIA 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Limsopatham, N., Macdonald, C., Ounis, I.: Inferring conceptual relationships to improve medical records search. In: OAIR 2013, pp. 1–8 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palotti, J., Goeuriot, L., Zuccon, G., Hanbury, A.: Ranking health web pages with relevance and understandability. In: SIGIR 2016, pp. 965–968 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Plovnick, R., Zeng, Q.: Reformulation of consumer health queries with professional terminology: a pilot study. JMIR, 6(3) (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silva, R., Lopes, C.: The effectiveness of query expansion when searching for health related content: Infolab at CLEF eHealth 2016. In: CLEF 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soldaini, L., Edman, W., Goharian, N.: Team GU-IRLAB at CLEF eHealth 2016: Task 3. In: CLEF (Working Notes), pp. 143–146 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soldaini, L., Goharian, N.: QuickUMLS: a fast, unsupervised approach for medical concept extraction. In: SIGIR MedIR 2016, Pisa, Italy (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soldaini, L., Goharian, N.: Learning to rank for consumer health search: a semantic approach. In: Jose, J.M., Hauff, C., Altıngovde, I.S., Song, D., Albakour, D., Watt, S., Tait, J. (eds.) ECIR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10193, pp. 640–646. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56608-5_60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toms, E., Latter, C.: How consumers search for health information. HIJ 13(3), 223–235 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zeng, Q., Kogan, S., Ash, N., Greenes, R., Boxwala, A.: Characteristics of consumer terminology for health information retrieval. JMIM 41(4), 289–298 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zeng, Q.T., Crowell, J., Plovnick, R.M., Kim, E., Ngo, L., Dibble, E.: Assisting consumer health information retrieval with query recommendations. JAMIA 13(1), 80–90 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, Y.: Searching for specific health-related information in MedlinePlus: behavioral patterns and user experience. JAIST 65(1), 53–68 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zuccon, G., Koopman, B., Palotti, J.: Diagnose this if you can: on the effectiveness of search engines in finding medical self-diagnosis information. In: Hanbury, A., Kazai, G., Rauber, A., Fuhr, N. (eds.) ECIR 2015. LNCS, vol. 9022, pp. 562–567. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16354-3_62 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zuccon, G., Palotti, J., Goeuriot, L., Kelly, L., Lupu, M., Pecina, P., Mueller, H., Budaher, J., Deacon, A.: The IR task at the CLEF eHealth evaluation lab 2016: user-centred health information retrieval. In: CLEF 2016 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Australian E-Health Research CenterCSIROBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.University of Surabaya (UBAYA)SurabayaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations