A framework for automatic information quality ranking of diabetes websites.

Rahime Belen Sağlam, Tugba Taskaya Temizel
Author Information
  1. Rahime Belen Sağlam: Department of Information Systems, Informatics Institute, Middle East Technical University , Ankara , Turkey.

Abstract

Objective: When searching for particular medical information on the internet the challenge lies in distinguishing the websites that are relevant to the topic, and contain accurate information. In this article, we propose a framework that automatically identifies and ranks diabetes websites according to their relevance and information quality based on the website content. Design: The proposed framework ranks diabetes websites according to their content quality, relevance and evidence based medicine. The framework combines information retrieval techniques with a lexical resource based on Sentiwordnet making it possible to work with biased and untrusted websites while, at the same time, ensuring the content relevance. Measurement: The evaluation measurements used were Pearson-correlation, true positives, false positives and accuracy. We tested the framework with a benchmark data set consisting of 55 websites with varying degrees of information quality problems. Results: The proposed framework gives good results that are comparable with the non-automated information quality measuring approaches in the literature. The correlation between the results of the proposed automated framework and ground-truth is 0.68 on an average with p < 0.001 which is greater than the other proposed automated methods in the literature (r score in average is 0.33).

Keywords

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0informationframeworkqualitywebsitesdiabetescontentproposedrelevancebasedranksaccordingpositivesresultsliteratureautomated0averageObjective:searchingparticularmedicalinternetchallengeliesdistinguishingrelevanttopiccontainaccuratearticleproposeautomaticallyidentifieswebsiteDesign:evidencemedicinecombinesretrievaltechniqueslexicalresourceSentiwordnetmakingpossibleworkbiaseduntrustedtimeensuringMeasurement:evaluationmeasurementsusedPearson-correlationtruefalseaccuracytestedbenchmarkdatasetconsisting55varyingdegreesproblemsResults:givesgoodcomparablenon-automatedmeasuringapproachescorrelationground-truth68p < 0001greatermethodsrscore33automaticrankingBiasedassessment

Similar Articles

Cited By