Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Kristian J. Concepcion

dblp:24/7019 · also Kris Concepcion · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2001
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 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.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 87% Information extraction and text analysis · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text summarization › domain-specific summarization
biography summarization
0.012001
Producing Biographical Summaries: Combining Linguistic Knowledge with Corpus Statistics · ACL 2001
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › text summarization
multi-document summarization
0.012001
Producing Biographical Summaries: Combining Linguistic Knowledge with Corpus Statistics · ACL 2001
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › corpus linguistics
corpus statistics
0.012001
Producing Biographical Summaries: Combining Linguistic Knowledge with Corpus Statistics · ACL 2001

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

redundancy removal · 0.0linguistic knowledge integration · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2001 Producing Biographical Summaries: Combining Linguistic Knowledge with Corpus Statistics
abstract
We describe a biographical multi-document summarizer that summarizes information about people described in the news. The summarizer uses corpus statistics along with linguistic knowledge to select and merge descriptions of people from a document collection, removing redundant descriptions. The summarization components have been extensively evaluated for coherence, accuracy, and non-redundancy of the descriptions produced.
Barry Schiffman, Inderjeet Mani, Kristian J. Concepcion
ACL3
2001 Research Paper: Generation and Evaluation of Intraoperative Inferences for Automated Health Care Briefings on Patient Status After Bypass Surgery
abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors present a system that scans electronic records from cardiac surgery and uses inference rules to identify and classify abnormal events (e.g., hypertension) that may occur during critical surgical points (e.g., start of bypass). This vital information is used as the content of automatically generated briefings designed by MAGIC, a multimedia system that they are developing to brief intensive care unit clinicians on patient status after cardiac surgery. By recognizing patterns in the patient record, inferences concisely summarize detailed patient data. DESIGN: The authors present the development of inference rules that identify important information about patient status and describe their implementation and an experiment they carried out to validate their correctness. The data for a set of 24 patients were analyzed independently by the system and by 46 physicians. MEASUREMENTS: The authors measured accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity by comparing system inferences against physician judgments, in cases where all three physicians agreed and against the majority opinion in all cases. RESULTS: For laboratory inferences, evaluation shows that the system has an average accuracy of 98 percent (full agreement) and 96 percent (majority model). An analysis of interrater agreement, however, showed that physicians do not agree on abnormal hemodynamic events and could not serve as a gold standard for evaluating hemodynamic events. Analysis of discrepancies reveals possibilities for system improvement and causes of physician disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation shows that the laboratory inferences of the system have high accuracy. The lack of agreement among physicians highlights the need for an objective quality-assurance tool for hemodynamic inferences. The system provides such a tool by implementing inferencing procedures established in the literature.
Desmond A. Jordan, Kathy McKeown, Kristian J. Concepcion, Steven K. Feiner, Vasileios Hatzivassiloglou
J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.3