• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Towards new measures of information retrieval evaluation.迈向信息检索评估的新方法。
Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:895-9. doi: 10.1145/215206.215355.
2
Factors associated with success in searching MEDLINE and applying evidence to answer clinical questions.与成功检索医学文献数据库(MEDLINE)以及应用证据回答临床问题相关的因素。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002 May-Jun;9(3):283-93. doi: 10.1197/jamia.m0996.
3
A comparison of two methods for indexing and retrieval from a full-text medical database.全文医学数据库中两种索引与检索方法的比较。
Med Decis Making. 1993 Jul-Sep;13(3):220-6. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9301300308.
4
Analysis of information needs of users of the Stanford Health Information Network for Education.斯坦福健康信息网络教育用户的信息需求分析。
Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:965-9.
5
Factors associated with successful answering of clinical questions using an information retrieval system.与使用信息检索系统成功回答临床问题相关的因素。
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000 Oct;88(4):323-31.
6
Do people experience cognitive biases while searching for information?人们在搜索信息时会经历认知偏差吗?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Sep-Oct;14(5):599-608. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2411. Epub 2007 Jun 28.
7
Do online information retrieval systems help experienced clinicians answer clinical questions?在线信息检索系统能帮助经验丰富的临床医生回答临床问题吗?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 May-Jun;12(3):315-21. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1717. Epub 2005 Jan 31.
8
Beyond information retrieval--medical question answering.超越信息检索——医学问答
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;2006:469-73.
9
On-line search strategies of third year medical students: perception vs fact.三年级医学生的在线搜索策略:认知与事实
J Surg Res. 1994 Apr;56(4):338-44. doi: 10.1006/jsre.1994.1052.
10
Current status of the evaluation of information retrieval.信息检索评估的现状
J Med Syst. 2003 Oct;27(5):409-24. doi: 10.1023/a:1025603704680.

引用本文的文献

1
Quantitative evaluation of recall and precision of CAT Crawler, a search engine specialized on retrieval of Critically Appraised Topics.对CAT Crawler(一个专门用于检索经严格评估主题的搜索引擎)召回率和精确率的定量评估。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2004 Dec 10;4:21. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-4-21.
2
Factors associated with successful answering of clinical questions using an information retrieval system.与使用信息检索系统成功回答临床问题相关的因素。
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2000 Oct;88(4):323-31.

本文引用的文献

1
A comparison of two methods for indexing and retrieval from a full-text medical database.全文医学数据库中两种索引与检索方法的比较。
Med Decis Making. 1993 Jul-Sep;13(3):220-6. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9301300308.
2
Database access and problem solving in the basic sciences.基础科学中的数据库访问与问题解决
Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993:678-82.
3
A performance and failure analysis of SAPHIRE with a MEDLINE test collection.使用MEDLINE测试集对SAPHIRE进行性能与故障分析。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994 Jan-Feb;1(1):51-60. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1994.95236136.
4
Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. A study of use and usefulness.临床环境中对MEDLINE的在线访问:使用情况与实用性研究
Ann Intern Med. 1990 Jan 1;112(1):78-84. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-112-1-78.
5
Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings: impact of user fees.临床环境中在线访问医学文献数据库(MEDLINE):用户付费的影响。
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1991 Oct;79(4):377-81.
6
Words, concepts, or both: optimal indexing units for automated information retrieval.单词、概念或两者兼而有之:自动化信息检索的最佳索引单元。
Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1992:644-8.

迈向信息检索评估的新方法。

Towards new measures of information retrieval evaluation.

作者信息

Hersh W R, Elliot D L, Hickam D H, Wolf S L, Molnar A, Leichtenstien C

机构信息

Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland.

出版信息

Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:895-9. doi: 10.1145/215206.215355.

DOI:10.1145/215206.215355
PMID:7950053
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2247933/
Abstract

All of the methods currently used to assess information retrieval (IR) systems have limitations in their ability to measure how well users are able to acquire information. We utilized a new approach to assessing information obtained, based on a short-answer test given to senior medical students. Students took the ten-question test and then searched one of two IR systems on the five questions for which they were least certain of their answer Our results showed that pre-searching scores on the test were low but that searching yielded a high proportion of answers with both systems. These methods are able to measure information obtained, and will be used in subsequent studies to assess differences among IR systems.

摘要

目前用于评估信息检索(IR)系统的所有方法在衡量用户获取信息能力方面都存在局限性。我们采用了一种基于对高年级医学生进行的简答题测试来评估所获信息的新方法。学生们参加了十道题的测试,然后在两个IR系统之一中搜索他们最不确定答案的五道题。我们的结果表明,测试前的分数较低,但搜索后两个系统都给出了很高比例的答案。这些方法能够衡量所获信息,并将在后续研究中用于评估IR系统之间的差异。