Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2013; 52(06): 538-546
DOI: 10.3414/ME13-01-0041
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Biomedical Informatics: We Are What We Publish

P. L. Elkin
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
,
S. H. Brown
2   Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA
3   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
,
G. Wright
4   Faculty of Health Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, Mthatha, South Africa
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 15 April 2013

accepted: 07 August 2013

Publication Date:
20 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Introduction: This article is part of a For-Discussion-Section of Methods of Information in Medicine on “Biomedical Informatics: We are what we publish“. It is introduced by an editorial and followed by a commentary paper with invited comments. In subsequent issues the discussion may continue through letters to the editor.

Objective: Informatics experts have attempted to define the field via consensus projects which has led to consensus statements by both AMIA. and by IMIA. We add to the output of this process the results of a study of the Pubmed publications with abstracts from the field of Biomedical Informatics.

Methods: We took the terms from the AMIA consensus document and the terms from the IMIA definitions of the field of Biomedical Informatics and combined them through human review to create the Health Infor -matics Ontology. We built a terminology server using the Intelligent Natural Language Processor (iNLP). Then we downloaded the entire set of articles in Medline identified by searching the literature by “Medical Informatics” OR “Bioinformatics”. The articles were parsed by the joint AMIA / IMIA terminology and then again using SNOMED CT and for the Bioinformatics they were also parsed using HGNC Ontology.

Results: We identified 153,580 articles using “Medical Informatics” and 20,573 articles using “Bioinformatics”. This resulted in 168,298 unique articles and an overlap of 5,855 articles. Of these 62,244 articles (37%) had titles and abstracts that contained at least one concept from the Health Infor -matics Ontology. SNOMED CT indexing showed that the field interacts with most all clinical fields of medicine.

Conclusions: Further defining the field by what we publish can add value to the consensus driven processes that have been the mainstay of the efforts to date. Next steps should be to extract terms from the literature that are uncovered and create class hierarchies and relationships for this content. We should also examine the high occurring of MeSH terms as markers to define Biomedical Informatics. Greater understanding of the Biomedical Informatics Literature has the potential to lead to improved self-awareness for our field.

Keywords

Medical informatics - bioinformatics - publication record - expert consensus - ontology
 

  • References

  • 1 Haux R, Ammenwerth E, ter Burg WJ, Pilz J, Jaspers MW. An international course on strategic information management for medical informatics students: aim, content, structure, and experiences. Int J Med Inform 2004; 73 (02) 97-100.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hasman A, Haux R. Curricula in medical informatics. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 109: 63-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Musen MA. Medical informatics: searching for underlying components. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41 (01) 12-19.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wright G. The Development of the IMIA Knowledge Base. SA Journal of Information Management 2011; 13 (01) Art. # 458-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schuemie MJ, Talmon JL, Moorman PW, Kors JA. Mapping the domain of medical informatics. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48 (01) 76-83.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gardner RM, Overhage JM, Steen EB, Munger BS, Holmes JH, Williamson JJ, Detmer DE. AMIA Board of Directors. Core content for the subspecialty of clinical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (02) 153-157.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kulikowski CA, Shortliffe EH, Currie LM, Elkin PL, Hunter LE, Johnson TR, Kalet IJ, Lenert LA, Musen MA, Ozbolt JG, Smith JW, Tarczy-Hornoch PZ, Williamson JJ. AMIA Board white paper: definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (06) 931-938.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 http://www.amia.org/clinical-informatics-medical-subspecialty.
    PubMed
  • 9 Elkin PL, Brown SH, Husser C, Bauer BA, Wahner-Roedler D, Rosenbloom ST. An evaluation of the content coverage of SNOMED-CT for clinical problem lists. Mayo Clin Proc 2006; 81 (06) 741-748.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Elkin PL, Trusko BE, Koppel R, Speroff T, Mohrer D, Sakji S, Gurewitz I, Tuttle M, Brown SH. Secondary use of clinical data. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 155: 14-29.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Murff HJ, FitzHenry F, Matheny ME, Gentry N, Kotter KL, Crimin K, Dittus RS, Rosen AK, Elkin PL, Brown SH, Speroff T. Automated identification of postoperative complications within an electronic medical record using natural language processing. JAMA 2011; 306 (08) 848-855.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Elkin PL, Froehling DA, Wahner-Roedler DL, Brown SH, Bailey KR. Comparison of natural language processing biosurveillance methods for identifying influenza from encounter notes. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156 (1 Pt 1) 11-18.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ceusters W, Elkin P, Smith B. Negative findings in electronic health records and biomedical ontologies: a realist approach. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76 (Suppl. 03) S326-33. Epub 2007 Mar 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar