The World Wide Web has become a huge repository of knowledge in many domains, including health problems and remedy. An intelligent system, having the capability of mining the relevant information from the web, can provide instant guidance in our basic health problems.
OBJECTIVE:
The first objective is to convert the free-form long user query into a structured summary. The second objective is to provide an advice for a health query posed by a user. The suggestion can be in the form of names of medicines and related information or a warning to indicate that the situation is a medical emergency.
METHODS:
First, a set of template information is extracted from the user question. A search query is formed to retrieve relevant pages from a set of trusted websites. The retrieved pages are processed in various levels to extract the remedy and related information.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:
The system is tested using a set of real questions collected from various relevant websites. The system generated suggestions are evaluated by experts. Evaluation results show that the system provides relevant results in 92.92% cases.
MillerR. Medical Diagnostic Decision Support Systems – Past, Present, and Future: A Threaded Bibliography and Brief Commentary. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 1994; 1(1): 8-27.
2.
BernerEMaisiakRCobbsCTauntonO. Effects of a Decision Support System on Physicians’ Diagnostic Performance. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 1999; 6(5): 420-427.
3.
ShortliffeEBuchananB. A model of inexact reasoning in medicine. Mathematical Biosciences. 1975; 23(3-4): 351-379.
4.
GoldbergRWeissS. An experimental transformation of a large expert knowledge base. Journal of Medical Systems. 1982; 6(1): 41-52.
5.
VankerAVan StoeckerW. An expert diagnostic program for dermatology. Computers and Biomedical Research. 1984; 17(3): 241-247.
6.
OrdonezC. Association Rule Discovery with the Train and Test Approach for Heart Disease Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine. 2006; 10(2): 334-343.
7.
HornKComptonPLazarusLQuinlanJ. An Expert System for the Interpretation of Thyroid Assays in a Clinical Laboratory. The Australian Computer Journal. 1985; 17(1): 7-11.
8.
BaimP. A method for attribute selection in inductive learning systems. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 1988; 10(6): 888-896.
9.
BrooksGAshtonRPethybridgeR. Dermis: a computer system for assisting primary-care physicians with dermatological diagnosis. British Journal of Dermatology. 1992; 127(6): 614-619.
10.
RuszkowskiJ. Early pregnancy disorders: Expert knowledge based consultation. Journal of Perinatal Medicine. 1988; 16(4): 289-298.
11.
OgurolYHofmannWGuderWIvandicM. From a Urinalysis Strategy to an Evaluated Urine Protein Expert System. Methods of Information in Medicine. 2000; 39(1): 93-98.
12.
AronskyDChanKHaugP. Evaluation of a Computerized Diagnostic Decision Support System for Patients with Pneumonia: Study Design Considerations. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2001; 8(5): 473-485.
13.
LiuJZhangZWongDXuYYinFChengJ, et al. Automatic glaucoma diagnosis through medical imaging informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2013; 20(6): 1021-1027.
14.
LedleyRLustedL. Reasoning Foundations of Medical Diagnosis: Symbolic logic, probability, and value theory aid our understanding of how physicians reason. Science. 1959; 130(3366): 9-21.
15.
BarnettG. DXplain. An evolving diagnostic decision-support system. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1987; 258(1): 67-74.
16.
GammermanAThatcherA. Bayesian Diagnostic Probabilities without Assuming Independence of Symptoms. Methods of Information in Medicine. 1991; 30(1): 15-22.
BaxtW. Use of an Artificial Neural Network for the Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1991; 115(11): 843.
19.
LisboaP. A review of evidence of health benefit from artificial neural networks in medical intervention. Neural Networks. 2002; 15(1): 11-39.
20.
ChanKLeeT-WSamplePGoldbaumMWeinrebRSejnowskiT. Comparison of machine learning and traditional classifiers in glaucoma diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2002; 49(9): 963-974.
21.
TorreETommasiTCaputoBGiganteG. Kernel methods for melanoma recognition. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006; 124: 983-988.
22.
LiuWWhiteAHallisseyMFieldingJ. Machine learning techniques in early screening for gastric and oesophageal cancer. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 1996; 8(4): 327-341.
23.
ElyJOsheroffJEbellMBergusGLevyBChamblissM, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999; 319(7206): 358-361.
24.
D’AlessandroDKreiterCPetersonM. An Evaluation of Information-Seeking Behaviors of General Pediatricians. PEDIATRICS. 2003; 113(1): 64-69.
25.
YuHCaoY. Automatically Extracting Information Needs from Ad Hoc Clinical Questions. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings; 2008: 96-100.
26.
CiminoJAguirreAJohnsonSPengP. Generic queries for meeting clinical information needs. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993; 81(2): 195-206.
27.
YuHLeeMKaufmanDElyJOsheroffJHripcsakG, et al. Development, implementation, and a cognitive evaluation of a definitional question answering system for physicians. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2007; 40(3): 236-251.
28.
CaoYLiuFSimpsonPAntieauLBennettACiminoJ, et al. AskHERMES: An online question answering system for complex clinical questions. Journal of Biomed. Informatics. 2011; 44(2): 277-288.
29.
SainSVapnikV. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Technometrics. 1996; 38(4): 409.
30.
MacLeanDHeerJ. Identifying medical terms in patient-authored text: a crowdsourcing-based approach. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2013; 20(6): 1120-1127.
31.
RanjanHAgarwalSPrakashASahaS. Automatic Labelling of Important Terms and Phrases from Medical Discussions. IEEE Conference on Information and Communication Technology 2017.
32.
LaffertyJMcCallumAPereiraF. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. Proc. 18th International Conf. on Machine Learning. 2011; pp. 282-289.
