Anthony Deacon

dblp:184/1989 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
0000-0001-5051-4817ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › document retrieval
domain-specific retrieval
0.312017
A Test Collection for Evaluating Retrieval of Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews · SIGIR 2017
Information retrieval
evaluation
0.312017
A Test Collection for Evaluating Retrieval of Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews · SIGIR 2017
Information retrieval › evaluation
test collection
0.312017
A Test Collection for Evaluating Retrieval of Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews · SIGIR 2017
Information retrieval › retrieval models
boolean retrieval
0.112017
A Test Collection for Evaluating Retrieval of Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews · SIGIR 2017

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

boolean retrieval · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Integrating the Framing of Clinical Questions via PICO into the Retrieval of Medical Literature for Systematic Reviews
abstract
The PICO process is a technique used in evidence based practice to frame and answer clinical questions. It involves structuring the question around four types of clinical information: population, intervention, control or comparison and outcome. The PICO framework is used extensively in the compilation of systematic reviews as the means of framing research questions. However, when a search strategy (comprising of a large Boolean query) is formulated to retrieve studies for inclusion in the review, PICO is often ignored. This paper evaluates how PICO annotations can be applied and integrated into retrieval to improve the screening of studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. The task is to increase precision while maintaining the high level of recall essential to ensure systematic reviews are representative and unbiased. Our results show that restricting the search strategies to match studies using PICO annotations improves precision, however recall is slightly reduced, when compared to the non-PICO baseline. This can lead to both time and cost savings when compiling systematic reviews.
Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, Anthony Deacon, Leif Azzopardi, Shlomo Geva
CIKM4
2017 A Test Collection for Evaluating Retrieval of Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews
abstract
This paper introduces a test collection for evaluating the effectiveness of different methods used to retrieve research studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Systematic reviews appraise and synthesise studies that meet specific inclusion criteria. Systematic reviews intended for a biomedical science audience use boolean queries with many, often complex, search clauses to retrieve studies; these are then manually screened to determine eligibility for inclusion in the review. This process is expensive and time consuming. The development of systems that improve retrieval effectiveness will have an immediate impact by reducing the complexity and resources required for this process. Our test collection consists of approximately 26 million research studies extracted from the freely available MEDLINE database, 94 review (query) topics extracted from Cochrane systematic reviews, and corresponding relevance assessments. Tasks for which the collection can be used for information retrieval system evaluation are described and the use of the collection to evaluate common baselines within one such task is demonstrated. The test collection is available at https://github.com/ielab/SIGIR2017-PICO-Collection.
Harrisen Scells, Guido Zuccon, Bevan Koopman, Anthony Deacon, Leif Azzopardi, Shlomo Geva
SIGIR4