Words or concepts: the features of indexing units and their optimal use in information retrieval.
- 1 January 1993
- journal article
- p. 685-9
Abstract
Words or Concepts, which are a better choice for indexing the contents of documents? The answer depends on what method is used for retrieval. This paper studies the effects of using canonical concepts versus document words in different retrieval systems with a testing collection of MEDLINE documents. In our tests, for a retrieval system which does not use any human knowledge, using words yielded better retrieval results, while using concepts suffered from a vocabulary difference between canonical expressions of concepts and non-canonical words in queries or documents. For a system which depends on the UMLS synonym set for a mapping from queries or documents to canonical concepts, the retrieval results were slightly better than the case of not using the synonyms, but still worse than the systems using words. For the systems which automatically "learn" empirical connections between words and concepts from examples in the testing collection, the vocabulary problem was effectively solved, and the results of using concepts were competitive or better, compared to those using words.This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Words, concepts, or both: optimal indexing units for automated information retrieval.1992
- An application of least squares fit mapping to clinical classification.1992
- Developments in Automatic Text RetrievalScience, 1991
- Global Text Matching for Information RetrievalScience, 1991
- Evaluation of SAPHIRE: an automated approach to indexing and retrieving medical literature.1991
- Online Access to MEDLINE in Clinical SettingsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1990