Patent Application
20170228455
The invention generally relates to the field of information retrieval and more particularly to retrieving information by eliminating its complement.
The computerization of medical records and medical services has opened the door to many IT innovations. This is true particularly in the areas of advanced and accurate text search engines. The importance of accurate results to a doctor and researches searching through medical documents like pathology and radiology reports, admission and discharge documents, nurses notes etc . . . ) is paramount. As such, it is important to perform the search not only for the right results (say you are looking for lungs disease), it is also important to leave out of the search results documents that show “no pathological findings” in the lungs.
Current search engines find all documents containing specific words or phrases. These searches have high false positive results, i.e. they retrieve many documents that does not contain the required information. The search can also miss important data. The reason is that the search query does not cover all possible expressions of the requested data. However, medical searches require high reliability.
U.S. patent application 2012/0179696 by Chariot et all “System and process for concept tagging and concept retrieval” discloses a system and process for tagging documents in order to facilitate later retrieval. The tagged concepts are well-defined clinical finding. Hence, well-defined clinical findings can be retrieved. However, the definition of clinical findings cannot cover all clinical findings, and therefore the retrieval of clinical findings may skip important information. This patent does note cope with the problem of false positive results, where too many non-relevant results are being retrieved.
Medical search needs to differentiate between findings and no findings—e.g. the difference between the following cases:
Doctors and researches need to be able to ask to exclude all cases with no pathological finding, otherwise the system becomes unusable. It is of paramount importance to identify no finding of pathological concepts and tag it as no finding so they can be excluded from the result set, if the user request so. Hence, there is a requirement for a search method that will assure reliable and comprehensive information retrieval.
The information retrieval method described in this invention is comprised of two phases. It is designed to retrieve information from a corpus, which contains huge number of documents. In the first phase each new document, which is added to the corpus, goes through tagging process. In this process, tags are added to sentences in the document according to the content of the sentence. The Tags are defined in a Tag Definition Table, where each tag can have plurality of description phrases called tag descriptors. When the content of a sentence is similar to a tag's descriptor, then the Tag is added to the sentence in the incoming document. The Tags define the opposite (negative) result of an expected query. Thus, if an expected query looks for high fever, then the Tag's descriptor defines cases of not high temperature (i.e. low temperature).
The Tag Definition Table (TDT) is defined by experts in the relevant field. For medical records, the TDT is prepared by doctors. The TDT is updated by the experts whenever a new definition is required.
In the next phase, a query is being processed. The query intends to find all cases of a pathological finding. The query processing phase involves two steps. In the first step all occurrences of the pathological subject are retrieved. The outcome of this step is an Initial Result List that contains documents with pathological findings and documents which does not contain pathological finding. In the next step, those documents that do not include pathological findings are filtered out from the Result List. Thus, only relevant documents, i.e. those which contain pathological findings remain in the Result List.
For example if the query intends to find pathological observations in the lungs, it first retrieves all documents which contains reference to the lungs the Initial Result Set. However, this Initial result set will include a document in which the following sentence may appear: “There are also no hyper metabolic foci suggestive of metastatic lesions including in lungs”. This is a false positive case since the it does not contain pathological finding in the lungs. This document has to be filtered out from the Initial Result List. This sentence will be filtered out because it was tagged as No-Finding in the first phase of the document processing.
It is an objective of the disclosed invention to minimize the false positive and false negative results of the query, i.e. minimize the retrieval of non-relevant results as well as minimizing exclusion of relevant results.
It is also an object of the disclosed invention to work efficiently when huge number of documents are stored in the corpus.
In order to make sure that the Tag is properly defined, it can be updated by the user according to the result of the query.
The invention will be described more fully hereinafter, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which a preferred embodiment of the invention is shown. The invention may, however, be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiment set forth herein; rather this embodiment is provided so that the disclosure will be thorough and complete, and will fully convey the scope of the invention to those skilled in the art.
Before describing the processing that each word goes through, it is important to explain the corpus of the system. The corpus of the system is a database that stores information on each document, sentence and each word ever entered the system, documents that constitute the search domain. Among the information on each sentence and word, the system corpus keeps a list of all words and their locations within the document as well as the sentence number within the document where that word is located, referred to as the search indexes. It also contains a phonetic representation for each word as well as statistical information on the word. Also it contain a dictionary of semantic synonyms of each word, including cross language synonyms. The result is that a search phrase entered by the user is transformed into multiple phrases that expressed the original query but not identical to it.
The no finding queries work the same but the tag is of type “no finding” which is used by the system as signal to filter it out when the user request only positive findings.
The system maintains a table, which defines No-Finding Tag definitions. An example of such a table is shown in Table 1. Each line in the table defines the TAG and its descriptors. The descriptor is a phrase. A TAG may have more than one descriptor. When a sentence in a document contains similar information to that of a TAG's descriptor, the TAG is added to No Finding Tagged Document Table, an example of which is shown in table 2.
adrenals <NF>
indicates data missing or illegible when filed
The flow chart of one embodiment of the preparation process is shown in
One embodiment of the processing of a query is shown in
If there is no sentence in the document that contain the search phrase and is not tagged with “no finding” tag, then the document is removed from the list
Another implementation of the processing of the query is shown in
Each result in the Result List goes through loop consisting of steps 238 to 248. In step 238, a result from the Result List is fetched. In step 240 the Tags of the sentences from the Result List 270, are compared to the Tags in the Relevant No-Finding Tag list 250. If match is found—step 242—Then step 244 is executed where the sentence with the matched Tag is removed from the Result List 270, followed by step 246 where a Removed Result List 280 is updated. In step 242, if tagged sentence from the Result List 270 is not found in the Relevant No-Finding Tag 250, then next sentence is processed. In step 248, if not all sentences in the Result List 270 have been processed then the next sentence is fetched and processed.
The user can see both the Result List and the Removed Result List, as shown in
If the user requests to view the Removed Result List—step 320, then the list is presented to the user who can open and view any document in the list—322. If the user finds that a document is relevant—step 324, i.e. it should have been included in the Result List, he can add the document to the Result List and remove it from the Removed Result List—step 326. The user can also update the No-Finding Tag Definition Table by deleting the Tag Descriptor that erroneously caused the tagging of the document.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/IL2015/000038 | 8/10/2015 | WO | 00 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62037697 | Aug 2014 | US |
