Category: Uncategorized

Van den Brekel, Perryman, Keats – these are among the big biomed librarian names in Second Life.

These health librarians are the peers pushing this immersive virtual technology forward – and using it in new, innovative ways. I really should be watching this presentation tomorrow but I don’t have the ability to install the SL client on my desktop at work. For those of you who do, check it out and report back.

October 14 – PubMed for YOU: Searching for Medical information
Healthinfo Island Classroom area
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. SL time
Prerequisites: Curiosity and an interest in searching for health information

“Join us on Healthinfo Island for a hands-on opportunity to learn how you can search the PubMed database. No need for prior experience – it’s about checking out one of the greatest information resources we have, free on the Internet. Questions? Contact Carolina Keats inworld.”

SL Coordinates: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Healthinfo%20Island/102/190/24

A vision for the next generation of the web – whether it be semantic or otherwise – is really up for grabs. In their paper (very accessible, easy to understand) “Toward the semantic deep web”, Geller et al argue that new semantic web approaches are needed to trawl the deep web using intelligent agents. What does all this data mining/data extraction mean for librarians who also want to get at this material?

For one, it means we want to be a part of the dialogue. New approaches to mining the deep recesses of the web involve techniques and methodologies that will query, extract and annotate millions of rich knowledge objects and resources. These mining extraction approaches will create a semantic layering on top of the deep web. This rich source of descriptive data is needed in all areas of the knowledge economy, especially in medicine.

In 2008, medical knowledge – and the bibliography that represents much of it – is in a better state of organization than many areas. The problems all stem from language, its ability to describe items (or not) and its inability to disambiguate across the tower of Babel that is human knowledge.

The semantic deep web as articulated by Geller et al is at once a no-nonsense attempt to move the discussion forward and a striking metaphor for the future of searching. All librarians should take heed of these developments.

Some of our students in LIBR534 have asked us to comment on measuring the effectiveness of a search as a gauge or way to determine how well the information retrieval process has gone.

First, let me say that I think it is very important to rely on the concepts of precision and recall throughout any search process. These basic concepts will guide you as you work to finesse what you will and will not accept in terms of results. Are there other methods of evaluation? Sure, but let’s just start with the basics.

When health librarians perform retrieval for systematic reviews I often ask them: “Have you found all relevant material or are you missing anything important?” During iterative searching for relevant materials, and searching for grey literature, health librarians try to avoid “a lot of junk” in the final results. But it may be inevitable as we work through recall issues and information overload. Some of this is unavoidable!

The idealism of finding “everything” while avoiding “junk trials” is time-consuming. It is crucial that health librarians – particularly information retrieval students in our LIBR534 class – work to gauge and assess their search activities based on two common parameters: precision and recall. Document, document, document!

Next post: more on the inverse relationship between precision and recall tomorrow….

A special thanks to uber Canadian health librarian Judy Inglis for letting all Canadian health librarians know about Hakia’s call for librarians and information specialists to help with the building of Hakia‘s semantic search tool (and underlying database of reliable medical websites).

This “call for librarians” leaves me feeling the say way I did in 2006 when Google asked for librarian volunteers for its Google – Coop (Health) project:

“Google Co-op Wants Librarian Volunteers – Thumbs Down”
http://migrator.rab.olt.ubc.ca/googlescholar/2006/08/Google-Co-op-Wants-Librarian-Volunteers—Thumbs-Down/

I scanned Hakia’s “call” but I wonder what it is about corporate search giants and their expectation that busy health librarians have the time to help them build a better search tool. On the one hand, it’s an acknowledgement of our search and web expertise, and a validation of our roles in the information age.

On the other, it leaves me feeling that search engine companies are unaware that our profession faces all kinds of challenges in the digital age, not the least of which is deprofessionalization and the expectation we can volunteer our time and expertise.

I look forward to hearing what others think about Hakia’s “call for librarians“.

Tonight, our LIBR534 class will embark on the process of learning how to answer reference questions in health. This is a lifelong learning endeavour. However, let’s begin by taking a sample question that I received today. (I’ll be doing several of these reference questions over the next while.)

~ Today’s reference question:

1. A young, well-educated female about 35 years of age wants to find clinical trials in the last five years that discuss paxil’s efficacy in post-partum depression (PPD). One challenge is that the patient wants to locate articles that discuss some of the risks associated with taking paxil for those women who happen to be breast-feeding. I conducted a thorough reference interview.

2. What is the clinical question? In a 35 year old patient who is taking paxil for her post-partum depression (PPD), are there any clinical trials from 2003 to 2008 that discuss whether breast milk poses any risks to her baby?”

3. Important keywords for this search? Paxil is trade name; (paroxetine); SSRI is class; post-partum depression (PPD) see also: ante-natal and post-natal depression; adverse effects; risks; risk assessment; risk factors; clinical trials; infant; mother.

4. Research paxil and post-partum depression. See concepts to understand basics. See CPS; MeSH database, MedlinePlus (Drugs): Dorland’s Dictionary entry; Wikipedia has entry on Paxil and Merck; see eMedicine. Paxil is a brand name of GlaxoSmithLine. Paroxetine hydrochloride [drug name]. Drug class: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) treats depression and anxiety disorders. Admin’d orally.

5. Index terms: MeSH & keywords: Various combinations of “Paroxetine”[MeSH] AND “Depression, Postpartum” [MeSH] AND “risk assessment” [MeSH] “breast feeding”[MeSH] OR “milk, human”[MeSH] OR “lactation”[MeSH]. Keywords can be used to increase retrieval if results look unhelpful or irrelevant. Limits: 2003-2008, Humans, English, Clinical Trial. Clinical queries.

***************************************

Finally, let’s take a look at which databases I consulted.

In addition to the sources above, to start:

1. PubMed.gov;
2. Google Scholar;
3. Scirus. I like Scirus as a free alternative to EMBASE – see the range of results
4. LactMed time permitting.
5. Any print sources?

This short video makes its points in a concise but slightly one-sided fashion.

References

1. Digital Tattoo project at UBC – www.digitaltattoo.ubc.ca

2. Government of Canada – Office of the Privacy Commissioner

The UBC Health Library wiki began in earnest in September 2006 – we are celebrating our second anniversary and I suspect will go over 1,000,000 page views by early October. However, as Eugene and I pointed out here, making a wiki work is a tough business. Does that mean we’re giving in to wikibots, spammers and the constant deluge of maintenance challenges? Heck, no.

Here are five (5) reasons why wiki’ing is hard work:

1. Content creation – creating new files is a little bit like writing encyclopedia entries so often I feel like I need to do a survey and literature review before I write something. Others have created content – but much of the wiki is my own.

2. Wikispam – not sure why, but the wikispam has just about killed me this month. I am deleting about 30 files a day. Ideally, I would like to have tighter controls in place including ‘closed editing’ to the wiki team. Funny, a lot of wikispam is in Chinese!

3. Updating entries – making sure entries are current is a constant challenge. In the last week, for example, I have been thinking about editing the teaching files, the search engine files (due to Infovell) and the systematic review searching file. This is taking up hours and hours of my time. Help!

4. Authority – I’m a generalist and feel ill-qualified to write certain entries in the wiki that I want to see created. I need to create a hybrid brain consisting of the expertise of Schardt, McGowan, Glanville, McKibbon and Kraft (I’m sure there are others I could get inspired by as I might have a few more bases covered).

5. Minimal use – I’m unsure as to how much the wiki is really being used. I know our LIBR534 students are using it and I get e-mails from health librarians who use it – and appreciate it. I may have to do a close analysis of the web traffic in my spare ‘moments’. 🙂

In sum, yes the wiki has been a hard, tough slog – and I have wanted it to work and be a collaborative platform. I’m still hoping…..wikification continues unabated

“Developing research capacity in health librarians: a review of the evidence”.

The Health Information and Libraries Journal publishes some terrific research, however it often reflects the very specific U.K. context. That said, take a look at some of the perspectives by Rossall et al in the September 2008 issue – well worth a look.

Recently, I have had several clinical faculty from the UBC Faculty of Medicine come to me to express their interest in exploring social software and various web 2.0 tools.

Quite often, physicians and I begin with a discussion of what social software is – and what does it have to do with web 2.0? But my sense is that many members of the Vancouver hospital and medical community are reaching a point where they want to explore these tools – perhaps we have reached a critical mass of interest in digital networking and collaboration?

One UBC medical faculty who is an advocate of mobile devices, Dr. Kendall Ho, has several projects on the go. His projects look at mobiles – like the iPhone specifically – but I surmise that he is examining how to use social software in the context of medical education as well. I would like to meet more early adopters like Kendall.

In any case, some of the questions that I am getting from physicians include:

1. How can we use social software to facilitate more collaboration among students?

2. How will we encourage the medical faculty to use these tools?

3. What software tools are the most conducive to collaboration and social networking?

4. What about immersive environments and virtual reality? How are these trends implicated in the discourse around medical education?

5. How do we introduce these concepts into clinical practice?

I wish I had all the answers to these questions. I think a good place to start is to read the available literature on social software and medicine. If you don’t want to use the term ‘Web 2.0’, that’s fine too. The focus is on how we can work together, how we can overcome barriers to collaboration and how we can manage information, ideas and insight more efficiently in the digital age.

Suggestions (from health librarians or physicians) are most welcome!

Another milestone for the UBC Health Library wiki – 900,000 page views. Shall we have a party when we reach 1,000,000 later this year? Thanks to everyone for making the wiki a useful, popular and collaborative platform for health librarians, physicians and others interested in biomedical searching. ~ Dean