Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Unified Architecture for Biomedical Search Engines Based on Semantic Web Technologies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a huge growth in the volume of published biomedical research in recent years. Many medical search engines are designed and developed to address the over growing information needs of biomedical experts and curators. Significant progress has been made in utilizing the knowledge embedded in medical ontologies and controlled vocabularies to assist these engines. However, the lack of common architecture for utilized ontologies and overall retrieval process, hampers evaluating different search engines and interoperability between them under unified conditions. In this paper, a unified architecture for medical search engines is introduced. Proposed model contains standard schemas declared in semantic web languages for ontologies and documents used by search engines. Unified models for annotation and retrieval processes are other parts of introduced architecture. A sample search engine is also designed and implemented based on the proposed architecture in this paper. The search engine is evaluated using two test collections and results are reported in terms of precision vs. recall and mean average precision for different approaches used by this search engine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leroy, G., and Chen, H. C., Meeting medical terminology needs: The ontology-enhanced medical concept mapper. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 5 (4)261–270, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yoo, I., Hu, X., and Song, I. Y., Biomedical ontology improves biomedical literature clustering performance: A comparison study. Int. J. Bioinformatics Res. Appl. 3 (3)414–428, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Freitas, F., Schulz, S., and Moraes, E., Survey of current terminologies and ontologies in biology and medicine. RECIIS—Electronic Journal in Communication, Information and Innovation in Health. 3 (1)7–18, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ashburner, M., et al., Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. The gene ontology consortium. Nat. Genet. 25 (1)25–29, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. UMLS. http://umlsks.nlm.nih.gov

  6. Pedersen, T., Pakhomov, S. V. S., and Patwardhan, S., Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness in the biomedical domain. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 40 (3)288–299, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kagolovsky, Y., and Moehr, J. R., A new look at information retrieval evaluation: Proposal for solutions. J. Med. Syst. 28 (1)103–116, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kagolovsky, Y., and Moehr, J. R., Current status of the evaluation of information retrieval. J. Med. Syst. 27 (5)409–424, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kagolovsky, Y., and Moehr, J. R., Introducing a conceptual Information Retrieval (IR) framework. J. Med. Syst. 28 (1)89–101, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Walczak, S., and Multiagent, A., Architecture for developing medical information retrieval agents. J. Med. Syst. 27 (5)479–498, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. OpenGALEN Mission Statement. http://www.opengalen.org/

  12. Foundational model of ontology. http://sig.biostr.washington.edu/projects/fm/AboutFM.html

  13. Rada, R., and Bicknell, E., Ranking documents with a thesaurus. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 40:304–310, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lord, P., Stevens, R., Brass, A., and Goble, C., Investigating semantic similarity measures across the gene ontology: The relationship between sequence and annotation. Bioinformatics. 19 (10)1275–83, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fellbaum, C., WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1998.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Resnik, P., Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: IJCAI-95—Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1:448–453, 1995.

  17. Jiang, J., and Conrath, D., Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics, 19–33, 1997.

  18. Wroe, C., Stevens, R., Goble, C., and Ashburner, M., A methodology to migrate the Gene Ontology to a description logic environment using DAML+OIL. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 8(1):624–635, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  19. The DARPA Agent Markup Language Homepage. http://www.daml.org/

  20. OWL Web Ontology Language. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

  21. Kashyap, V., and Borgida, A., Representing the UMLS semantic network using OWL (or “What’s in a semantic web link?”). In: Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference, 1–16, 2003.

  22. Mukherjea, S., Information retrieval and knowledge discovery utilising a biomedical semantic web. Brief. Bioinform. 6 (3)252–262, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schulz, S., Stenzhorn, H., Boeker, M., and Smith, B., Strengths and limitations of formal ontologies in the biomedical domain. RECIIS—Electronic Journal in Communication, Information and Innovation in Health. 3 (1)31–45, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  24. OntoViz. http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/index.php/OntoViz

  25. Protégé. http://protege.stanford.edu

  26. Aronson, A. R., Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: The MetaMap Program. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium, 17–21, 2001.

  27. Zou, Q., Chu, W. W., Morioka, C., Leazer, G. H., and Kangarloo, H., IndexFinder: A method of extracting key concepts from clinical texts for indexing. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium, 763–767, 2003.

  28. Denny, J. C., Irani, P. R., Wehbe, F. H., Smithers, J. D., and Spickard, A., The KnowledgeMap project: Development of a concept-based medical school curriculum database. In: Proceedings of the Annual AMIA Symposium, 195–199, 2003.

  29. Hu, X., Lin, T. Y., Song, I. Y., Yoo, I., and Song, M., A semi-supervised efficient learning approach to extract biological relationships from web-based biomedical digitallibrary. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems. 4 (3)327–339, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jiang, J., and Zhai, C. X., An empirical study of tokenization strategies for biomedical information retrieval. Inf. Retr. 10:341–363, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hersh, W., Buckley, C., Leone, T., and Hickam, D., OHSUMED: An interactive retrieval evaluation and new large test collection for research. In: Proceedings of the International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 17:192–201, 1994.

  32. Aggarwal, V., The application of the unified modeling language in object-oriented analysis of healthcare information systems. J. Med. Syst. 26 (5)383–397, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mao, W., Chu, W., Free-text medical document retrieval via phrase-based vector space model. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium, 489–493, 2002.

  34. Srinivasan, P., Query expansion and MEDLINE. Information Processing and Management. 32 (4)431–443, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang, J., He, X., and Zhai, C. X., Robust pseudo feedback estimation and HMM passage extraction. In: Proceedings of the 15th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC’06), 2007.

  36. Jalali, V., and Borujerdi, M. R. M., Concept based pseudo relevance feedback in biomedical field. Studies in Computational Intelligence. 209:69–79, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. SPARQL Query Language for RDF. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/

  38. OWL-QL Project for the Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory. http://ksl.stanford.edu/projects/owl-ql/

  39. Burgun, A., Botti, G., Fieschi, M., and Beux, P. L., Issues in the design of medical ontologies used for knowledge sharing. J. Med. Syst. 25 (2)95–108, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jalali, V., and Borujerdi, M. R. M., The effect of using domain specific ontologies in query expansion in medical field. Innovations in Information Technology. 5(1):277–281, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lucene, http://lucene.apache.org/

  42. Li, Y., Bandar, Z., and McLean, D., An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 15 (4)871–882, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hersh, W., Buckley, C., Leone, T., Hickam, D., OHSUMED: An interactive retrieval evaluation and new large test collection for research. In: Proceedings of the International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 17:192–201, 1994.

  44. trec_eval. http://trec.nist.gov/trec_eval/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advance Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Computer Engineering and IT Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Vahid Jalali & Mohammad Reza Matash Borujerdi

Authors
  1. Vahid Jalali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Reza Matash Borujerdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vahid Jalali.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jalali, V., Matash Borujerdi, M.R. A Unified Architecture for Biomedical Search Engines Based on Semantic Web Technologies. J Med Syst 35, 237–249 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-009-9360-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-009-9360-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation