New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ensure more creative results are shown in our results #2157
Comments
Slotting this on the agenda for tomorrow's AHM. Good topic for group discussion. |
I am intrigued with the "interleave" idea. While xDTD is awesome, I have concerns about a modification such that creative mode results are always (and only) at the top; I can expound on that tomorrow at the meeting. |
Thoughts from the AHM: Different possible approaches include:
|
Eg. of a bazillion lookups: https://arax.ncats.io/?r=174764 |
@dkoslicki As a test (and since there was a TRAPI query for it in #2187) I ran "what drugs treat multiple sclerosis" through ARAX (the I think there are four things driving such a large number of lookup results:
I think our scores are, overall, a bit too high for the drugs that are not indicated for MS (e.g., the investigational treatments). For the drugs that are indicated for MS, the scores are fine. Our scores are way too high for the overly general stuff like "Vaccines" and stuff like that. Ideally, those should be either filtered out or have their score reduced due to the concepts' generality. I know we've talked about this a lot, I guess I'm just echoing the feeling here that it would be good if we weren't seeing "antibodies" and "vaccines" and "vitamins" in the results. |
So in conclusion, I concur, there really aren't 500 different treatments for M.S. But there are probably at least 60-70 that are used to manage M.S. (remember it's a complex multi-faceted disease for which there is AFAIK no cure), plus another 100 to 150 being actively investigated. |
@saramsey do we have a KP or edge property that we can use explicitly for "indicated for"? IIRC, when we ask for |
@dkoslicki I am not sure. It is a problem that the In the meantime, I like the idea of trying to pull in that information from somewhere. I am not sure about where we could get it, though. I guess if someone were to go through all 500 results and label them as "indicated", "investigational", and "neither" (this would take an afternoon though!), we could try to find which sources are contributing to the "indicated" vs. "investigational". I suspect there will be a bias towards certain sources. |
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/drugsfda-data-files perhaps? Doesn't cover biologics and like though |
while I'm not aware of something like |
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Should be a good first pass, so @kvnthomas98 please do make note of Amy's comment once you start working on this. |
Thank you @amykglen, good suggestion |
Currently Lookup Results may dominate the results.
If we have a creative query, we need to ensure that creative results don't get filtered out.
Suggestions proposed by @dkoslicki:
i) Manually place creative results on top.
ii) Interleave creative results between lookup results.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: