{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03563333509040114, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01612988245216383, 'mean_word_length': 5.017126546146527, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Finding the best semantic expansion to query PubMed: automatic performance assessment of four search strategies on all MeSH descriptors

Background: With the continuous expansion of available biomedical data, efficient and effective information retrieval has become of utmost importance. Semantic expansions of queries using synonyms may improve information retrieval. Objective: The aim of this study was to propose an innovative method that could estimate automatically the three main metrics used in information science (precision, recall and F-measure) of four different semantic expansion strategies, assessed on all the descriptors in the MeSH thesaurus (n=28,313). Methods: Four search strategies were assessed in this study: the standard Automatic Term Mapping (ATM) of PubMed and three strategies that use semantic expansion. ATM queries were of the form: (“preferred term”[MH] OR “preferred term”[All fields]). The queries of the other three strategies were of the form: (“preferred term”[MH] OR “preferred term”[All fields] OR “synonym 1”[All fields] OR “synonym 2”[All fields] OR etc.). These three strategies differed by the number and provenance of the synonyms used to build the queries: MeSH synonyms, UMLS mappings and custom mappings (CISMeF). Metrics were assessed by computing (A): the number of all relevant citations, using NLM indexing as gold standard ((“preferred term”[MH]), (B): the number of citations retrieved by the added terms, and (C): the number of relevant citations retrieved by the added terms (combining the previous two queries with an “AND” operator). Therefore, it was possible to compute programmatically the metrics for each strategy using every MeSH descriptor as a “preferred term”. 239,724 different queries were built and sent to PubMed API. The four search strategies were ranked and compared for each metric. Results: ATM had the worst performance of the four strategies, for all three metrics. MeSH strategy had the best mean precision (50.93 %, SD = 23 %). UMLS strategy had the best recall and F-measure (40.57 %, SD = 31 % and 35.51 %, SD = 24 %, respectively). CISMeF had the second best recall and F-measure (40.11 %, SD = 31 % and 35.10 %, SD = 24 %, respectively). However, considering a cut-off of 5%, CISMeF had better precision than UMLS for 1180 descriptors, better recall for 793 descriptors and better F-measure for 678 descriptors. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of using semantic expansion strategies to improve information retrieval. However, the performances of the strategies were greatly variable depending on the MeSH descriptor, for each metric. These results confirm there is no ideal search strategy for all descriptors. Different semantic expansions should be used depending on the descriptor and the user’s objectives. This led our team to develop an interface that allows users to input a descriptor and then proposes the best semantic expansion to maximize the three main metrics, precision, recall or F-measure.


Introduction Background
Since the publication of the first model of a modern scientific journal in 1665 ("Le Journal des Sçavans") it is estimated that the number of scholarly articles in existence exceeded 50 million in 2009 [1]. Since April 2018, the PubMed® search engine, a service of the U.S National Library of Medicine (NLM®), provides access to over 28 million citations for biomedical literature, of which more than 26 million are from the MEDLINE® database. The number of citations added to MEDLINE each year now exceeds 1 million (1,178,360 citations added in 2016) [2]. With this continuous expansion of available biomedical data, efficient and effective information retrieval has become of utmost importance. PubMed is one of the most used tools to access these data, and its popularity is growing steadily each year: from 2.5 billion searches performed in 2013 to 3.3 billion in 2017 [3].
However, numerous studies have reported that users lack search skills for the effective use of PubMed [4][5][6]. Although a basic search using PubMed can be relatively straightforward, a deeper understanding of its structure and underlying search algorithm is needed to perform an effective search of the literature. In order to improve the accuracy of information retrieval, MEDLINE citations are indexed in the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®) thesaurus [7], but most users do not know it well enough and do not commonly use its descriptors to build their queries [8,9]. Moreover, users rarely employ search tags, therefore not fully exploiting the features of PubMed [10]. Consequently, the NLM has developed an automatic process to modify users' explicit queries: Automatic Term Mapping (ATM). Entry terms are mapped to their corresponding MeSH descriptors and compound words are broken down and combined with Boolean operators "AND" and "OR" and searched with the tag [All fields] [11].
The purpose of ATM is to improve information retrieval, but several studies have proposed alternative processes to enhance users' queries that have yielded better results [12][13][14][15]. They consist in performing semantic expansions with synonyms of the entry terms. These processes differ in the Knowledge Organisation System (KOS) they use to perform the expansions. The MeSH thesaurus, developed by the NLM, is a list of descriptors covering the biomedical field. Each descriptor has a preferred term and may have some synonyms. In 2009, Thirion et al. proposed the expansion of queries with MeSH synonyms. This optimization led to a significant improvement in the performances of information retrieval [14]. In 2012, Griffon et al. proposed using the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS®) to perform the expansion [15], leading to a slight increase in recall but a decrease in precision.
MeSH and UMLS expansion strategies were implemented in the InfoRoute tool [16], largely inspired by Cimino's Infobutton [17]. The InfoRoute algorithm allows contextual information retrieval across multiple medical websites in English and French, including PubMed, by generating links-queries.

Prior work
In order to improve information retrieval, our team (physicians and terminology specialists) has developed new mappings between the terms of the 71 KOS available in the HeTOP (Health Terminology/Ontology Portal) cross lingual terminology server, of which 54 are not included in UMLS [18]. These mappings, also known as CISMeF (French acronym, Catalogue et Index des Sites Médicaux de langue Française) mappings, were created by aligning terms describing the same concept, either manually (manual mappings) or automatically using UMLS or Natural Language Processing and then validated by a human (supervised mappings). The performance of this new kind of semantic expansion was manually assessed in a previous study by Massonnaud et al. (not available for citation at the time of publication of this manuscript).
Although these different strategies [14,15] have provided a significant improvement in terms of the effectiveness of information retrieval, there are limitations to the assessment of their performances. Assessments were performed manually, allowing only small samples of descriptors and citations. Moreover, all the studies revealed a great variability of results depending on the descriptor used. This behaviour suggested there was no semantic expansion that would be optimal for all descriptors, but rather that the semantic expansion to be used should be chosen according to the specific descriptor and the user's objective; i.e. when seeking either better precision or recall or a harmonic mean view using F-measure.

Objective
The aim of this study was to propose an innovative method that could estimate automatically the three main metrics used in information science: precision, recall and F-measure, of multiple search strategies. Four different semantic expansions were assessed on all the descriptors (n=28,313) in the MeSH thesaurus, in order to provide users the opportunity to choose the strategy that would best fit their needs.

Data collection
Four search strategies were assessed in this study. The standard ATM of PubMed and three kinds of queries enhanced with semantic expansions: MeSH, UMLS and CISMeF. Essentially, all these queries are of the form: ("preferred term" [MH] OR "preferred term"[All fields] OR "synonym 1"[All fields] OR "synonym 2"[All fields] OR etc.).
[MH] being the tag for the MeSH terms field. The objective was to evaluate the added value of "preferred term"[All fields], in the case of ATM, and the added value of the synonyms, in the case of MeSH, UMLS and CISMeF expansions.
Precision was defined as the fraction of relevant citations among the retrieved citations and recall as the fraction of relevant citations retrieved from the total amount of relevant citations. Therefore, in order to estimate automatically these metrics for a given query, it was necessary to identify  Table 1 shows a summary of the syntax of the resulting nine different queries. The HeTOP terminology server [18] provides relations between multiple KOS. Given a particular concept, it is possible to gather automatically the MeSH preferred term of this concept and its synonyms from the KOS of interest. As the 2018 version of the MeSH was not released at the time of this study, the 2017 version was used, containing 28,313 descriptors, of which 26,636 were used at least once for indexing citations. It was then possible to build programmatically the nine different queries (Table 1) for the 26,636 descriptors; i.e. a total of 239,724 queries. ATM behaviour regarding the split of compound words was reproduced exactly. In order to shorten the length of the queries, the terms were set to lowercase and multiple occurrences of the exact same term were removed. The citation count for each of the 239,724 queries was retrieved via PubMed application programming interface. The process time of these 239,724 queries on a microcomputer was around 3h30. Therefore, it is scalable and can be run frequently.

Statistical Analysis
The mean precision, recall and F-measure were computed for the 26,636 descriptors and for each of the four search strategies. The four strategies were ranked and the number of descriptors for which the CISMeF strategy had better results than each of the three other strategies was computed, considering a difference of at least 5% (arbitrary). The metrics were also computed with stratification on the MeSH category. Statistical analysis was performed using R software (version 3.4.3). As the analysis was performed on the entire set of the MeSH descriptors, confidence intervals and p-values were not needed, and therefore not computed. Table 2 shows the mean precision, recall and F-measure for each of the four search strategies. ATM had the worst performances of the four strategies, for all three metrics. MeSH had the best mean precision (50.93 %, SD = 23 %). CISMeF and UMLS had identical results for precision (49.20 %, SD = 23 %). UMLS had the best recall and F-measure (40.57 %, SD = 31 % and 35.51 %, SD = 24 %, respectively). CISMeF had the second best recall and F-measure (40.11 %, SD = 31 % and 35.10 %, SD = 24 %, respectively).  Table 3 shows the number of descriptors for which CISMeF had better results than each of the three other strategies and vice-versa, by at least 5%. The analysis stratified on the category (tree) of the Mesh descriptor revealed the same trends for all three metrics. The best precision was obtained with category C (diseases) by the MeSH strategy (58.16%). MeSH had the best precision for all categories expect category B (organisms) for which ATM had the best precision (data not shown). The best recall was obtained with category B by UMLS (64.28%), which had the best results for 11 out of the 15 categories. CISMeF had the best recall for the remaining four categories: H (Disciplines and Occupations), K (Humanities), L (Information Science) and N (Health Care). ATM had the worst recall for all categories (data not shown). Figure 1 shows the F-measure scores for each of the four strategies depending on the MeSH category of the descriptor. The best Fmeasure was obtained with category B by UMLS (47.55%). UMLS had the best Fmeasure for all categories except category H, for which CISMeF had the best score (19.82%), and category I (Anthropology, Education, Sociology and Social Phenomena), for which MeSH had the best F-measure (22.38%).

Principal Results
Of the four strategies assessed in this study, PubMed's standard ATM had the worst mean performances for the three metrics measured (i.e. precision, recall and Fmeasure). These results are consistent with previous studies [14,15]. The best precision was obtained with the MeSH strategy (50.93 %). The mean values of precision for both CISMeF and UMLS strategies were identical (49.20 %). For recall and F-measure, the best performance was obtained by the UMLS strategy, then by CISMeF and then by MeSH.
Even though the differences between the mean performances of the three enhanced strategies (i.e. MeSH, CISMeF and UMLS) were small, with no difference at all for numerous descriptors, this did not reflect the huge variability of the results. Indeed, for each metric, the ranking of the four strategies was greatly dependant on the descriptor. For instance, although UMLS and CISMeF had identical performances for mean precision, CISMeF had better precision than UMLS for 1180 descriptors.
Likewise, the CISMeF strategy had better recall for 793 descriptors and better Fmeasure for 678 descriptors. Even the ATM strategy, which had significantly lower mean results for all three metrics, was ranked first for several descriptors (data not shown).
The huge variability of the performances found here is consistent with previous studies [14,15]. This variability was an important limiting factor for these studies since the assessments were performed manually, therefore on a restricted set of descriptors. Consequently, the interpretation of the results was difficult and had important limitations. The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate an original approach for the automatic assessment of the three main metrics of information science. This innovative method allowed us to test the four different strategies of semantic expansion on the entire set of MeSH preferred descriptors (n=28,313), rather than on a small subset. The results found with this new method conform to those of previous studies, with a similar ranking of the four search strategies. These results also confirm the great variability of performances depending on the descriptor. The analysis of different possible confounding factors did not reveal any specific pattern that could explain the variability. The ranking of the four strategies was similar after stratification on the descriptor's category in the MeSH tree. The exact same evaluation was performed with different tags in the queries [19]. The tag *[majr] was tested instead of * [mh], and all strategies were tested with and without the explosion behaviour, which is activated by default [20]. The assessment was also performed over different time intervals. All these different analyses revealed similar ranking of the four strategies and similar variability (data not shown).
These results suggest that the choice of the semantic expansion strategy used to build the query must be made according to the descriptor. Since the automatic assessment tested here allowed assessment of all the MeSH preferred descriptors, it is now possible to choose which semantic expansion strategy to use to build a query for a given descriptor, according to the performances of the three metrics (precision, recall and F-measure). As the process time of this automatic assessment is quite low, it can be updated frequently (each day, each week or each month). Technically, the assessment could also be performed in real time, although this does not seem necessary since the results should not vary greatly during short periods of time.
The availability of quantitative measurements of the performances of different strategies now allows users to decide which semantic expansion to use given a particular MeSH descriptor. Depending on their specific needs, users could either choose the strategy providing best precision, best recall or best F-measure, since these performances could be accomplished by different strategies. These considerations led our team to develop an interface that allows users to input their MeSH preferred descriptor and that displays the performances of the different strategies for all three metrics. Thus, users can choose which strategy to adopt depending on their needs, with the possibility to build and send the query automatically to PubMed search engine. A perspective could be to go even further in the customization of the queries, with the possibility to add successively each synonym, each time assessing in real time the performances of this custom query.

Limitations
This study has some limitations. First, in order to assess the metrics in an automatic manner, the scope of the search had to be restricted to the indexed citations of the MEDLINE® database. The assessment of recent, non-indexed, citations could only be performed manually, with all the limiting factors previously described in the literature. However, it is legitimate to assume that the different semantic expansions would perform in the same way on the entire database since there is no reason to think that the indexing paradigms would shift suddenly for a given descriptor. Moreover, the results presented here are consistent with manual evaluations of previous studies, suggesting there is no major bias in this new methodology. Secondly, the queries built were simple queries based on only one MeSH preferred term. It would be necessary to evaluate the performances of these different semantic expansions with more complex queries, associating multiple MeSH preferred terms. However, the behaviour of such queries would be identical because the semantic expansion of each term would be treated independently, and then recombined with Boolean operators, which is the default behaviour of PubMed's ATM.

Conclusions
In this study we present an innovative method to automatically compute, on PubMed citations, the three main metrics used in information science. This new method allowed us to compare four semantic expansion strategies to query PubMed on all MeSH descriptors. These results confirm the great variability depending on the descriptor. Hence, the need to propose to users the semantic expansion that best fits their specific objectives. Thanks to the possibility to update regularly the performances of these search strategies on all the MeSH descriptors, our team has developed an interface that allows users to input a descriptor and then proposes the best semantic expansion to maximize either precision, recall or F-measure.