The scientific community has reacted to the COVID-19 outbreak by producing a high number of literary works that are helping us to understand a variety of topics related to the pandemic from different perspectives. Dealing with this large amount of information can be challenging, especially when researchers need to find answers to complex questions about specific topics. We present an Information Retrieval System that uses latent information to select relevant works related to specific concepts. By applying Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) models to documents, we can identify key concepts related to a specific query and a corpus. Our method is iterative in that, from an initial input query defined by the user, the original query is expanded for each subsequent iteration. In addition, our method is able to work with a limited amount of information per article. We have tested the performance of our proposal using human validation and two evaluation strategies, achieving good results in both of them. Concerning the first strategy, we performed two surveys to determine the performance of our model. For all the categories that were studied, precision was always greater than 0.6, while accuracy was always greater than 0.8. The second strategy also showed good results, achieving a precision of 1.0 for one category and scoring over 0.7 points overall.
HuiDSAzharEIMadaniTAet al. The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health – the latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. Int J Infect Dis2020; 91: 264–266.
LiSWangYXueJet al. The impact of COVID-19 epidemic declaration on psychological consequences: a study on active Weibo users. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 2032.
6.
LiuQZhengZZhengJet al. Health communication through news media during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in China: digital topic modeling approach. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: e19118.
7.
HuynhTLD. The COVID-19 risk perception: a survey on socioeconomics and media attention. Econ Bullet2020; 40: 758–764.
8.
Torres-SalinasD. Ritmo de crecimiento diario de la producción científica sobre Covid-19. Análisis en Bases de Datos y Repositorios en Acceso Abierto. Prof Inform. Epub ahead of print 14April2020. DOI: 10.3145/epi.2020.mar.15.
LouJTianSJNiuSMet al. Coronavirus disease 2019: a bibliometric analysis and review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci2020; 24: 3411–3421.
11.
NasabFRRahimF. Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on SARSCoV-2 (COVID-19). medRxiv. Epub ahead of print 23March2020. DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.19.20038752.
12.
BonnevieEGallegos-JeffreyAGoldbargJet al. Quantifying the rise of vaccine opposition on Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Comm Healthc2021; 14: 12–19.
13.
Baraybar-FernándezAArrufat-MartínSRubira-GarcíaR. Public information, traditional media and social networks during the COVID-19 crisis in Spain. Sustainability2021; 13: 6534.
14.
FengYZhouW. Is working from home the new norm?An observational study based on a large geo-tagged COVID-19 Twitter dataset, http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08581 (2020, accessed 28 December 2021).
15.
SharifiAKhavarian-GarmsirAR. The COVID-19 pandemic: impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci Total Environ2020; 749: 142391.
16.
CinelliMQuattrociocchiWGaleazziAet al. The COVID-19 social media infodemic, http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.05004 (2020, accessed 26 May 2020).
17.
LopezCEVasuMGallemoreC. Understanding the perception of COVID-19 policies by mining a multilanguage Twitter dataset, http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.10359 (2020, accessed 26 May 2020).
18.
SinghLBansalSBodeLet al. A first look at COVID-19 information and misinformation sharing on Twitter, http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13907 (2020, accessed 26 May 2020).
19.
SchildLLingCBlackburnJet al. ‘Go eat a bat, Chang!’: on the emergence of Sinophobic behavior on web communities in the face of COVID-19, http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04046 (2020, accessed 26 May 2020).
20.
RiloffESchaferCYarowskyD. Inducing information extraction systems for new languages via cross-language projection. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on computational linguistics, Taipei, Taiwan, 24 August–1 September2002, pp. 1–7. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
21.
LatifSUsmanMManzoorSet al. Leveraging data science to combat COVID-19: a comprehensive review. IEEE T Artif Intel2020; 1: 85–103.
22.
ShahPKPerez-IratxetaCBorkPet al. Information extraction from full text scientific articles: where are the keywords?BMC Bioinformatics2003; 4: 20.
23.
WilliamsR. Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
24.
BakerP. Querying keywords: questions of difference, frequency, and sense in keywords analysis. J Engl Linguist2004; 32: 346–359.
25.
WangXLiuWChauhanAet al. Automatic textual evidence mining in COVID-19 literature, http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.12563 (2020, accessed 28 December 2021).
26.
EstevaAKaleAPaulusRet al. COVID-19 information retrieval with deep-learning based semantic search, question answering, and abstractive summarization. npj Digit Med2021; 4: 1–9.
27.
VoorheesEAlamTBedrickSet al. TREC-COVID: constructing a pandemic information retrieval test collection. ACM SIGIR Forum2020; 54: 1.
28.
BestPTaylorBManktelowRet al. Systematically retrieving research in the digital age: case study on the topic of social networking sites and young people’s mental health. J Inf Sci2014; 40: 346–356.
29.
KarlssonAHammarfeltBSteinhauerHJet al. Modeling uncertainty in bibliometrics and information retrieval: an information fusion approach. Scientometrics2015; 102: 2255–2274.
30.
DimitrakisESgontzosKTzitzikasY. A survey on question answering systems over linked data and documents. J Intell Inf Syst2020; 55: 233–259.
31.
MohammedSHAl-AugbyS. LSA & LDA topic modeling classification: comparison study on E-books. Indones J Electr Eng Comput Sci2020; 19: 353–362.
32.
ZuoYWuJZhangHet al. Topic modeling of short texts: a pseudo-document view. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, San Francisco, CA, 13–17 August2016, pp. 2105–2114. New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
33.
ChenGXiaoL. Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: a comparison of three methods. J Informetr2016; 10: 212–223.
34.
WeinbergBH. Bibliographic coupling: a review. Inform Storage Ret1974; 10: 189–196.
35.
GarfieldE. KeyWords Plus – ISI’s breakthrough retrieval method. 1. Expanding your searching power on current-contents on diskette. Curr Contents1990; 1: 5–9.
36.
GanesanKLloydSSarkarV. Discovering related clinical concepts using large amounts of clinical notes. Biomed Eng Comput Biol2016; 7(suppl. 2): 27–33.
37.
RoellekeTWangJ. TF-IDF uncovered: a study of theories and probabilities. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (ACM SIGIR’2008), Singapore, 20–24 July2008, pp. 435–442. New York: ACM Press.
38.
SinglaAPatraS. A fast automatic optimal threshold selection technique for image segmentation. Signal Image Video P2017; 11: 243–250.
39.
CaiDHeXHanJ. Training linear discriminant analysis in linear time. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE 24th international conference on data engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 7–12 April2008, pp. 209–217. New York: IEEE.
MimnoDWallachHTalleyEet al. Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. In: Proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Edinburgh, 27–31 July2011, pp. 262–272. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
42.
Powers DMW. Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation, http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.16061 (2020, accessed 30 January 2022).
43.
Matthews-TriggNCitrinDHallidaySet al. Understanding perceptions of global healthcare experiences on provider values and practices in the USA: a qualitative study among global health physicians and program directors. BMJ Open2019; 9: e026020.
44.
BakriFGAlqadiriHMAdwanMH. The highest cited papers in brucellosis: identification using two databases and review of the papers’ major findings. Biomed Res Int2018; 2018: 9291326.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
