Enhancing Collaborative Case Diagnoses Through Unified Medical Language System-Based Disambiguation: A Case Study of the Zika Virus

The Unified Medical Language System at 30 Years and How It Is Used and Published: Systematic Review and Content Analysis

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.

Measuring Relevant Information in Health Social Network Conversations and Clinical Diagnosis Cases

The Internet and social media is an enormous source of information. Health social networks and online collaborative environments enable users to create shared content that afterwards can be discussed. The aim of this paper is to present a novel methodology designed for quantifying relevant information provided by different participants in clinical online discussions. The main goal of the methodology is to facilitate the comparison of participant interactions in clinical conversations. A set of key indicators for different aspects of clinical conversations and specific clinical contributions within a discussion have been defined. Particularly, three new indicators have been proposed to make use of biomedical knowledge extraction based on standard terminologies and ontologies. These indicators allow measuring the relevance of information of each participant of the clinical conversation. Proposed indicators have been applied to one discussion extracted from PatientsLikeMe, as well as to two real clinical cases from the Sanar collaborative discussion system. Results obtained from indicators in the tested cases have been compared with clinical expert opinions to check indicators validity. The methodology has been successfully used for describing participant interactions in real clinical cases belonging to a collaborative clinical case discussion tool and from a conversation from a health social network. This work can be applied to assess collaborative diagnoses, discussions among patients, and the participation of students in clinical case discussions. It permits moderators and educators to obtain a quantitatively measure of the contribution of each participant.