基于用户体验的互联网搜索引擎医学信息检索可用性评估研究
|
摘要
伴随着互联网迅猛的发展,世界已经进入了互联网时代,一个重要的标志就是爆炸性的信息共享。如今互联网已经成为人们获取所需信息的主要途径之一,越来越多的人使用互联网这种便捷的信息获取途径来查找自己所需的卫生保健信息和医疗医药知识。对于从互联网上获取所需信息的众多方法来说,信息搜索引擎无疑是最主要的一种,它往往成为人们查询有关健康卫生信息以及疾病和药物基础知识的首选方式。于是,通过搜索引擎所获得的信息的可用性和准确性,以及如何高效和便捷的获取所需信息就成了众多用户所经常遇到的问题。
本文正是以此为研究的切入点,首次从软件工程的角度,将产品(服务)的可用性评估中可量化的可用性测试的相关方法应用于互联网的医学健康信息获取的可用性研究中。对当下搜索引擎服务行业市场份额占有率最高的Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Ask.com四种主流搜索引擎在用户获取医学健康信息方面的表现,以及各搜索引擎之间的侧重和异同进行了深入的比较和评估。
我们采用由实际用户对互联网搜索引擎所检索到的有关医学健康信息内容的搜索返回结果内容进行评分的数据量化方式,来体现搜索引擎用户的真实用户体验。应用软件工程可用性评估中的可用性测试方法对搜索引擎医学健康信息检索进行基于用户体验的可用性评估研究。本研究对于提升互联网医学健康信息相关搜索的可用性以及用户如何更高效快捷的获取所需信息方面提出了建议和借鉴。
Internet becomes one of the most important means for people to obtain health and medical information. It is often a first step for people to check basic information on diseases, and medicine and the searched results are often helpful to users. Among various Internet search engines, Google is the most widely used. More and more people use Internet search engines, especially Google, to learn diseases and possible treatments. Furthermore, more and more clinicians began to use search engine to help diagnosis. There are some studies suggests that non-physician may also occasionally obtain correct diagnoses through Internet-based search and this may help physician-patient interaction. All these studies indicate that search engines like Google could play an important role in obtaining and assessing medical information for professionals and lay people. In order to check the quality and effectiveness of search engine, some researchers have done a lot of study works. Some of their mechanism was too general and the systematic data didn't build up. Some researchers' studies were too systematic and didn't consider user's experience. Thus, it is more important for the search engines to meet public needs based on users' experience.
The objective of this study is to conduct Internet search engines usability test in obtaining medical information. Usability testing as a software engineering technique and standard industry practice is critical for software validation. It often addresses the ease of use in terms of the human-computer interaction by collecting direct input on how real users use the system. Usability testing is different from usability inspection where experts apply different methods to evaluate a user interface without involving users. In this study, We conducted a hallway testing to evaluate the effectiveness of search engines such as Google etc. for obtaining medical information. We searched“Breast Cancer”using Google and the other three search engines Yahoo!, Bing and Ask.com. Professors from medical school and doctors from cancer clinic are invited to provided the standard of the most useful websites, which were well known to provide useful information about breast cancer to public. These websites have comprehensive information about breast cancer, such as understanding of breast cancer, symptoms, diagnosis, and so on. In each testing, volunteers scored their experience for each of the websites and the result was evaluated by a physician. We collected the data from volunteers and re-ranked those websites based on their scores. We used Java.net to obtain all the text content in these websites. SNOMED CT (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine– Clinical Terms) was applied as a measure in the analysis. Index the data of websites contents to investigate the quantity of information shown in the websites, including their subpages. Collect the results of data index and re-rank the websites from high to low according to the quantity of information shown in the websites. We compared those rankings. Our study shows that expert-annotated websites that are highly useful can be generally found by these search engines. Many of the top 50 websites are informative, with extensive usage of the keywords. This does not seem to be affected significantly by the commercial nature of search engines, which allows websites to pay for higher ranking. Search engines can often identify some well-known sites although users' experience is diverse. Part of the reasons for search engines' success comes from the way that search engines re-rank sites based on hits of these popular websites. Hence, a useful website with high ranking is likely to stay with high ranking. On the other hand, this could be a double-edged sword. We found some helpful websites that users recognized were ranked beyond top 100. As users rarely visit websites ranking beyond top 100, these helpful websites have little chance to improve ranking. In conclusion, our study shows that search engine like Google is by and large an effective search engine for helping lay users in getting medical information, but there are some pitfalls in that some highly useful websites may be buried beyond highly ranked sites. In other words, the specificity is good while sensitivity may not be satisfactory when using Google in searching for medical information.
It is important to point out the limitation of this study, i.e., the user experience in medical information or information obtained by patients does not necessarily match that from their doctors. In the era of patient-centered care, evidence-based practice, personalized medicine, and health care system reform, vast availability of health information on the Internet has a significant impact on modern medical practice. The patients should not be expected to fully understand the significance of the medical information that they searched. Given that patients deserve the best care with accurate diagnosis and the most effective treatment, it is the responsibility for medical professionals to explain the medical knowledge and terminologies in a lay language to their patients in the patient-centered decision-making process. Explanations of nature of disease, possible diagnostic procedures, therapeutic options, potential side effects and cost should be offered to their patients. Ultimately, patient’s health care plan should reflect the best-available scientific evidence, the maximal benefit to each particular patient, high quality of life, and cost effective and feasible management, while Internet search results may provide a starting point for patient-doctor communication. To further foster this new trend of patient care model in the Internet age, proper evaluation of search engines for health information is critical. Our case study, although performed only in a small scale, provids the first-hand data from users in terms of their experience in using Internet to search for medical information, and is a useful attempt to evaluate the usability on the Internet search engine for obtaining medical information. To our knowledge, this is the first quantitative usability test from a software engineering perspective in applying Internet search for obtaining medical information. This study may provide some suggestions in improving the overall usability of health-related Internet search.
本文正是以此为研究的切入点,首次从软件工程的角度,将产品(服务)的可用性评估中可量化的可用性测试的相关方法应用于互联网的医学健康信息获取的可用性研究中。对当下搜索引擎服务行业市场份额占有率最高的Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Ask.com四种主流搜索引擎在用户获取医学健康信息方面的表现,以及各搜索引擎之间的侧重和异同进行了深入的比较和评估。
我们采用由实际用户对互联网搜索引擎所检索到的有关医学健康信息内容的搜索返回结果内容进行评分的数据量化方式,来体现搜索引擎用户的真实用户体验。应用软件工程可用性评估中的可用性测试方法对搜索引擎医学健康信息检索进行基于用户体验的可用性评估研究。本研究对于提升互联网医学健康信息相关搜索的可用性以及用户如何更高效快捷的获取所需信息方面提出了建议和借鉴。
Internet becomes one of the most important means for people to obtain health and medical information. It is often a first step for people to check basic information on diseases, and medicine and the searched results are often helpful to users. Among various Internet search engines, Google is the most widely used. More and more people use Internet search engines, especially Google, to learn diseases and possible treatments. Furthermore, more and more clinicians began to use search engine to help diagnosis. There are some studies suggests that non-physician may also occasionally obtain correct diagnoses through Internet-based search and this may help physician-patient interaction. All these studies indicate that search engines like Google could play an important role in obtaining and assessing medical information for professionals and lay people. In order to check the quality and effectiveness of search engine, some researchers have done a lot of study works. Some of their mechanism was too general and the systematic data didn't build up. Some researchers' studies were too systematic and didn't consider user's experience. Thus, it is more important for the search engines to meet public needs based on users' experience.
The objective of this study is to conduct Internet search engines usability test in obtaining medical information. Usability testing as a software engineering technique and standard industry practice is critical for software validation. It often addresses the ease of use in terms of the human-computer interaction by collecting direct input on how real users use the system. Usability testing is different from usability inspection where experts apply different methods to evaluate a user interface without involving users. In this study, We conducted a hallway testing to evaluate the effectiveness of search engines such as Google etc. for obtaining medical information. We searched“Breast Cancer”using Google and the other three search engines Yahoo!, Bing and Ask.com. Professors from medical school and doctors from cancer clinic are invited to provided the standard of the most useful websites, which were well known to provide useful information about breast cancer to public. These websites have comprehensive information about breast cancer, such as understanding of breast cancer, symptoms, diagnosis, and so on. In each testing, volunteers scored their experience for each of the websites and the result was evaluated by a physician. We collected the data from volunteers and re-ranked those websites based on their scores. We used Java.net to obtain all the text content in these websites. SNOMED CT (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine– Clinical Terms) was applied as a measure in the analysis. Index the data of websites contents to investigate the quantity of information shown in the websites, including their subpages. Collect the results of data index and re-rank the websites from high to low according to the quantity of information shown in the websites. We compared those rankings. Our study shows that expert-annotated websites that are highly useful can be generally found by these search engines. Many of the top 50 websites are informative, with extensive usage of the keywords. This does not seem to be affected significantly by the commercial nature of search engines, which allows websites to pay for higher ranking. Search engines can often identify some well-known sites although users' experience is diverse. Part of the reasons for search engines' success comes from the way that search engines re-rank sites based on hits of these popular websites. Hence, a useful website with high ranking is likely to stay with high ranking. On the other hand, this could be a double-edged sword. We found some helpful websites that users recognized were ranked beyond top 100. As users rarely visit websites ranking beyond top 100, these helpful websites have little chance to improve ranking. In conclusion, our study shows that search engine like Google is by and large an effective search engine for helping lay users in getting medical information, but there are some pitfalls in that some highly useful websites may be buried beyond highly ranked sites. In other words, the specificity is good while sensitivity may not be satisfactory when using Google in searching for medical information.
It is important to point out the limitation of this study, i.e., the user experience in medical information or information obtained by patients does not necessarily match that from their doctors. In the era of patient-centered care, evidence-based practice, personalized medicine, and health care system reform, vast availability of health information on the Internet has a significant impact on modern medical practice. The patients should not be expected to fully understand the significance of the medical information that they searched. Given that patients deserve the best care with accurate diagnosis and the most effective treatment, it is the responsibility for medical professionals to explain the medical knowledge and terminologies in a lay language to their patients in the patient-centered decision-making process. Explanations of nature of disease, possible diagnostic procedures, therapeutic options, potential side effects and cost should be offered to their patients. Ultimately, patient’s health care plan should reflect the best-available scientific evidence, the maximal benefit to each particular patient, high quality of life, and cost effective and feasible management, while Internet search results may provide a starting point for patient-doctor communication. To further foster this new trend of patient care model in the Internet age, proper evaluation of search engines for health information is critical. Our case study, although performed only in a small scale, provids the first-hand data from users in terms of their experience in using Internet to search for medical information, and is a useful attempt to evaluate the usability on the Internet search engine for obtaining medical information. To our knowledge, this is the first quantitative usability test from a software engineering perspective in applying Internet search for obtaining medical information. This study may provide some suggestions in improving the overall usability of health-related Internet search.
引文
[1] Collins FS. New goals for the U.S. Human Genome Project. 1998-2003.
[2] Zhang CT. The current status and the prospect of bioinformatics. WORLD SCI-TECH R & D, 2000, 2(6): 17-20.
[3] Bonguki MS. Bioinformatics-a new era. TIBC, 1998, 16(Suppl 1): 1-3.
[4] Tang XQ, Zhu P. Developing trend of bioinformatics in post genome era. China Journal of Bioinformatics, 2008, 3: 142-145.
[5] Needleman SB, Wunsch CD. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J Mol Biol. 1970, 48(3): 443-453.
[6] Smith TF, Waterman MS. Identification of common molecular subsequences. J Mol Biol. 1981, 147(1): 195-197.
[7] Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990, 215(3): 403-410.
[8] Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 1980, 16(2): 111-120.
[9] Jukes TH, Cantor CR. Evolution of protein molecules, in Munro HN (eds.). Mammalian Protein Metabolism. Academic Press, 1969.
[10] Luo JX, Zheng JC, Ma YX, Zhang SZ. Human genome project and the post genome era. China Biotechnology. 2003, 23(11): 87-94.
[11] Baldi P, Brunak S, Bioinformatics: The Machine Learning Approach, Second Edition. MIT Press, 2001.
[12] Baxevanis AD, Ouellette BFF. Bioinformatics: A Practical Guide to the Analysis of Genes and Proteins, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons Press, 2004.
[13] Wang X. The phylogeny of Internet. PC Professionell China. 2007, 03: 182-188.
[14] Internet World Stats. (URL: http://www.internetworldstats.com).
[15]中国网络信息中心(China Internet Network Information Center,CINIC).第24次中国互联网发展统计报告. 2009.
[16] Wang EH, Sun XX, Qian TL. The Analysis of Differentia of Internet Development in China. Statistical Research. 2006, 08: 41-44.
[17] Mayhew DJ. The usability engineering lifecycle. Academic Press, 1999.
[18] Shakel B, Richardson E. In Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[19] Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. Academic Press. 1994.
[20] Hartson HR. Human-computer Interaction: interdisciplinary roots and trends. The Journal of System and Software. 1998, 43: 103-118.
[21] International Organization for Standardization. ISO/DIS 9241-11, Guidance on Usability. 1997.
[22] Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons Press, 2007.
[23] Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J. User-Centered Design. In Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Sage Press, 2004.
[24] Kuniavsky M. Observing the User Experience: A Practioner's Guide for User Research. Elsevier Science & Technology Books Press, 2003.
[25] Garrett JJ. The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web. New York, AIGA New Riders Press, 2002
[26] Mohammed RA. Internet Marketing: building advantage in the networked economy. McGraw-Hill Press, 2002.
[27] Arhippainen L. Capturing user experience for product design. (URL:http://www.msh-alpes.prd.fr/ADAMOS/material/arhippa2.pdf). 2009.
[28] Dam VN, Evers V, Arts FA. Cultural user experience issues in e-government: designig for a muti-cultural society. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Press, 2005, 3081: 310-324.
[29] Hassenzahl M. The quality of interactive products: Hedonic needs, emotions and experience. Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction. Idea Group Reference Press, 2005, 652-660.
[30] Deng SL. The Advancement of the Study on Foreign User Experience. Library and Information Service. 2008, 52(3): 43-45.
[31] Forlizzi J, Ford S. The building blocks of experience: an early framework for interaction designers. Proc. ACM SIGCHI'00 Conf. ACM. 2000, 419-423.
[32] Dewey J. Art as Experience. Perigee Press, 2005.
[33] Scherer KR. Introduction: Cognitive components of emotion. Handbook of the Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, 2004, 563-571.
[34] Vyas D, Van Der Veer GC. APEC: A framework for designing experience. Infoscicornelledu. 2005, 2: 1-4.
[35] Card SK, Moran TP. Newell A. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. LEA Press, 1983.
[36] Molich R, Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proc. ACM SIGCHI'90 Conf. ACM. 1990, 249-256.
[37] Nielsen J. How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. (URL: http://www.useit.com/ papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html). 1994.
[38] Muller MJ, Matheson L, Page C, Gallup R. Participatory heuristic evaluation. Interactions. 1998, 05(5): 13-18.
[39] Nielsen J. Ten usability heuristics (URL: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/ heuristic_list.html). 1994.
[40] Lewis C, Polson PG, Wharton C, Rieman J. Testing a Walkthrough Methodology for Theory-Based Design of Walk-Up-and-Use Interfaces. Proc. ACM SIGCHI'90 Conf. ACM. 1990, 235-242.
[41] Wharton C, Lewis C, Polson P. The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A practitioner's guide. Nielsen J, Mack RL. Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
[42] Sears A, Hess D. Cognitive Walkthrough: understanding the effect of task-description detail on evaluator performance. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction. 1999, 11(3): 185-200.
[43] Jacobsen NE, John BE. Two Case Studies in Using Cognitive Walkthrough for Interface Evaluation. (URL: http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/usr/ anon/home/ftp/home/anon/2000/abstracts/00-132.html). Carnegie Mellon University. 2000 May.
[44] Zhou RG, Zhang K. Cognitive Walkthrough for Interface Usability Evaluation. Chinese Ergonomics. 2003, 9(3): 30-33.
[45] Lewis C, Wharton C. Cognitive walkthroughs. Helander MG, Landauer TK, Prabhu P. Handbook of Human-computer Interaction, Second Edition. Elsevier Science & Technology Books Press, 1997, 717-732.
[46] BlackmonM MH, Polson PG, Kitajima M, Lewis C. Cognitive walkthrough for the Web. Proc. ACM SIGCHI'02 Conf. ACM. 2002, 463-470.
[47] Taylor SE, Schroeder K. Inside Intuit: how the makers of Quicken beat Microsoft and revolutionized an entire industry. Harvard Business Press, 2003.
[48] Brown C. Usability Testing in Internet Time. Performance Improvement. 2002, 41(10): 40-46.
[49] Dumas JS, Redish J. A practical guide to usability testing. Intellect Press, 1999.
[50] Nielsen J. Why you only need to test with 5 users (URL: http://www.useit.com/ alertbox/20000319.html). 2000 Mar.
[51] Spool J, Schroeder W. Testing web sites: five users is nowhere near enough. ACM SIGCHI'01 Conf. ACM. 2001, 285-286.
[52] Caulton DA. Relaxing the homogeneity assumption in usability testing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2001, 20(1): 1-7.
[53] Schmettow M, Heterogeneity in the Usability Evaluation Process. Proc. HCI 2008 Conf, British Computing Society, 2008, 1: 89-98.
[54] Rubin J, Chisnell D. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[55] Cote RA. Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine. College of American Pathologists Press, 1977.
[56] DICOM. (URL: http://medical.nema.org/). 2009 Jul.
[57] Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC?). (URL: http://www.loinc.org/). 2009 Nov.
[58] Cote RA,李恩生译.国际医学规范术语全集(SNOMED International).北京医科大学出版社,中国协和医科大学出版社. 1997.
[59] Yang Y, Cui M. SNOMED发展概况与展望. Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2007, 14(2): 97-99.
[60] SNOMED Clinical Terms? (SNOMED CT?). (URL: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ research/umls/Snomed/snomed_main.html). 2009 Jul.
[61] IHTSDO SNOMED CT. (URL: http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/snomed-ct -publications). 2010 Jan.
[62] Spackman KA, Campbell KE. Compositional concept representation using SNOMED: towards further convergence of clinical terminologies. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998, 740-744.
[63] Lloyd BW, Barnett P. Use of problem lists in letters between hospital doctors and general practitioners. BMJ. 1993 Jan, 306(6872): 247.
[64] SNOMED CT Donwnload. (URL: http: //www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/ licensedcontent/downloads.html). 2009.
[65] 2009AB SNOMED CT Source Information. (URL: http: //www.nlm.nih.gov/ research/umls/sourcereleasedocs/2009AB/SNOMEDCT/). 2009.
[66] Guo YF, Liu BY, Cui M, Li P, Yang Y. Content Synopsis of SNOMED CT. Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2006, 13(7): 100-102.
[67] Guo YF, Liu BY, Zhou XZ. A detailed in troduction to SNOMED CT 2007's top-level concept hierarchies. Chinese Archives of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2008, 26(9): 1928-1932.
[68] Guo YF, Liu BY, Zhou XZ. Semantic Relationship and Linkage Concept of SNOMED CT. Chinese Archives of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2008, 26(10): 2206-2208.
[69] Guo YF, Liu BY, Zhou XZ. Conjunction in SNOMED CT 2007. Chinese Archives of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2008, 26(11): 2416-2423.
[70] Elkin PL, Brown SH, Husser CS, et al. Evaluation of the content coverage of SNOMED CT: ability of SNOMED clinical terms to represent clinical problem lists. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Jun, 81(6): 729-731.
[71] Zhong L, Lin DH, Lin XH. Characteristics of the SNOMED CT and its application. Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science. 2007, 16(2): 58-60.
[72] Yang Y, Cui M. The Development and Expectation of SNOMED CT. Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2007, 14(2): 97-99.
[73] Zhang PJ. The Present Situation and Development of Network Search Engine. Sci-Tech Information Development & Economy. 2008, 18(9): 156-157.
[74] Chen DP. A study on the All-in-One Search Page and Meta-Search Engine. Journal of Academic Library and Information Science. 2005, 23(1): 42-43+84.
[75] Su MM, Song W. Recent Advances in Solutions of Ontology-based Semantic Search Engine. New Technology of Library and Information Service. 2008, 171(11): 24-28.
[76] Lei YG, Uren V, Motta E. SemSearch: A Search Engine for the Semantic Web. Proc. EKAW 2006, Managing Know ledge in a World of Networks. 2006, 238-245.
[77] Celino I, Della Valle E, Cerizza D, Turati A. Squiggle: A Semantic Search Engine for Indexing and Retrieval of Multimedia Content. Proc. 1st International Workshop on SEMPS 2006. 2006.
[78] Lancaster FW, Fayen EG. Information Retrieval: On-Line. Melville Pub press, 1973.
[79] Chu HT, Rosenthal M. Search Engines for the World Wide Web: A Comparative Study and Evaluation Methodology. Proc. ASIS'96 Conf. 1996, 33: 127-135.
[80] Leighton HV, Srivastava J. First 20 precision among World Wide Web search services (search engines). Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1999, 50(10): 870-881.
[81] Han SL. Evaluation Measures for Network Information Retrieval Tools. Journal of The China Society For Scientific and Technical Information. 2001, 20(04): 471-477.
[82] Wang JJ. Comparative Study on the Evaluation Index Systems for Search Engine. Library And Information Service. 2008, 52(10): 136-138+116.
[83] Salton G, Lesk ME, Computer Evaluation of Indexing and Text Processing. Journal of ACM. 1968, 15(1): 8-36.
[84] Salton G, Fox EA, Wu H. Extended Boolean information retrieval. Communications of the ACM. 1983, 26(11): 1022-1036.
[85] Kleinberg J. Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment. Proc. ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1998, pp.668-677.
[86] Bharat K,Henzinger MR. Improved algorithms for topic distillation in a hyperlinked environment. Proc. 21st Intl. ACM SIGIR Conf. ACM. 1998, 104-111.
[87] Chakrabarti S, Dom B, Raghavan P, Gibson D, et al. Automatic resource compilation by analyzing hyperlink structure and associated text. Proc. 7th Intl. WWW'98 Conf. 1998, 65-74.
[88] Li LZ, Shang Y, Zhang W. Improvement of HITS-based Algorithms on Web Documents. Proc. 11th Intl. WWW'02 Conf. ACM. 2002, 527-535.
[89] Brin S, Page L. The Anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Proc. 7th Intl. WWW'98 Conf. & Computer Networks and ISDN Systems. 1998, 30(1-7): 107-117.
[90] Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Stanford Digital Libraries Technologies Project. 1998.
[91] Bergman MK. White Paper: The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value. Journal of Electronic Publishing. 2001, 7(1).
[92]中国网络信息中心(China Internet Network Information Center,CINIC). 2009年中国搜索引擎用户行为研究报告. 2009.
[93] Zou YL, Wang CQ. User's Factors Affecting the Retrieval Efficiency of Network Information. Information Studies: Theory & Application. 2008, 31(3): 374-376.
[94] iProspect. iProspect Search Engine User Attitudes. 2004.
[95] Baeza-Yates R, Ribeiro-Neto B. Modern information retrieval. ACM Press, 1999.
[96] Large A, Beheshti J, Rahman T. Gender differences in collaborative web searching behavior: an elementary school study. Information Processing & Management. 2002, 38(3): 427-443.
[97] Bilal D, Kirby J. Differences and similarities in information seeking: children and adults as web users. Information Processing and Management. 2002, 38(5): 649-670.
[98] Holscher C, Strube G. Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Proc. 9th Intl. WWW'00 Conf. 2000, 337-346.
[99] Huang MH. Pausal behavior of end-users in online searching. Information Processing and Management. 2003, 39(3): 425-444.
[100] Fox S, Rainie L. The online health care revolution: how the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2000.
[101] Eysenbach G. The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2003, 53(6): 356-371.
[102] Fox S. Health information online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. May 2005.
[103] Atkinson NL, Saperstein SL, Pleis J. Using the Internet for Health-Related Activities: Findings From a National Probability Sample. J Med Internet Res 2009, 11(1): e4.
[104] American Medical Association. Study on Physicians' Use of the World Wide Web. AMA Press, 2002.
[105] Greenwald R. And a diagnostic test was performed. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353(19): 2089-2890.
[106] Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: a systematic survey of advice and managing fever in children at home. BMJ. 1997, 314(7098): 1875-881.
[107] Steinbrook R. Searching for the right search - reaching the medical literature. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 4-7.
[108] Breckons M, Jones R, Morris J, Richardson J. What Do Evaluation Instruments Tell Us About the Quality of Complementary Medicine Information on the Internet? J Med Internet Res. 2008, 10(1): e3.
[109] Jeannot JG, Scherer F, Pittet V, et al. Use of the World Wide Web to Implement Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Feasibility Study. J Med Internet Res 2003, 5(2): e12.
[110] Tang H, Ng JHK. Googling for a diagnosis-use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study. Br Med J. 2006, 333: 1143-1145.
[111] Bio-Medicine News. How about Dr. Google? Search engine's prowess in medical diagnosis stumps researcher. (URL: http: //www.bio-medicine.org/ medicine-news/How-about-Dr--Google-3F--Search-engine-u2019s-prowess-in-medical-diagnosis-stumps-researcher-15711-1) Bio-Medicine News. Friday, November 10 2006.
[112] Laurance J. Researchers impressed by Google's medical diagnoses. (URL: http: //www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/researchers-impressed-by-googles-medical-diagnoses-423707.html). The Independent News. Friday, November 10 2006.
[113] Siempos II, Spanos A, Issaris EA, et al. Non-physicians may reach correct diagnoses by using Google: a pilot study. Swiss Med Wkly. 2008, 138(49-50): 741-745.
[114] Arora NK, Hesse BW, Rimer BK, et al. Frustrated and confused: the American public rates its cancer-related information seeking experiences. J Gen Intern Med. 2008, 23(3): 223-228.
[115] Helft PR. A new age for cancer information seeking: are we better off now? J Gen Intern Med. 2008, 23: 350-352.
[116] Chang P, Hou IC, Hsu CL, Lai HF. Are Google or Yahoo a Good Portal for Getting Quality Healthcare Web Information? AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006, 2006: 878.
[117] Helft PR. Breast cancer in the information age: a review of recent developments. Breast Disease. 2008, 21: 41-46.
[118] Java Excel API. (URL: http: //jexcelapi.sourceforge.net). JExcelApi. 2009.
[119] PageRank Checker Tool. (URL: http: //www.whatsmypagerank.com/). Whats my PageRank. 2009.
[120] Google PageRank Checker. (URL: http: //www.prchecker.info/). Page Rank Checker. 2009.
[121] Gordon M, Pathak P. Finding information on the World Wide Web: the retrieval effectiveness of search engines. Information Processing & Management 1999, 35(2): 141-180.
[122] Kobayashi M, Takeda K. Information retrieval on the Web. ACM Computing Surveys. 2000, 32(2): 144-173.
[123] Chakrabarti S, Dom BE, Kumar SR, et al. Mining the web's link structure. Computer. 1999, 32(8): 60-67.
[124] Google Search Engine Preferences (URL: http: //www.google.com/preferences). 2009.
[2] Zhang CT. The current status and the prospect of bioinformatics. WORLD SCI-TECH R & D, 2000, 2(6): 17-20.
[3] Bonguki MS. Bioinformatics-a new era. TIBC, 1998, 16(Suppl 1): 1-3.
[4] Tang XQ, Zhu P. Developing trend of bioinformatics in post genome era. China Journal of Bioinformatics, 2008, 3: 142-145.
[5] Needleman SB, Wunsch CD. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J Mol Biol. 1970, 48(3): 443-453.
[6] Smith TF, Waterman MS. Identification of common molecular subsequences. J Mol Biol. 1981, 147(1): 195-197.
[7] Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990, 215(3): 403-410.
[8] Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 1980, 16(2): 111-120.
[9] Jukes TH, Cantor CR. Evolution of protein molecules, in Munro HN (eds.). Mammalian Protein Metabolism. Academic Press, 1969.
[10] Luo JX, Zheng JC, Ma YX, Zhang SZ. Human genome project and the post genome era. China Biotechnology. 2003, 23(11): 87-94.
[11] Baldi P, Brunak S, Bioinformatics: The Machine Learning Approach, Second Edition. MIT Press, 2001.
[12] Baxevanis AD, Ouellette BFF. Bioinformatics: A Practical Guide to the Analysis of Genes and Proteins, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons Press, 2004.
[13] Wang X. The phylogeny of Internet. PC Professionell China. 2007, 03: 182-188.
[14] Internet World Stats. (URL: http://www.internetworldstats.com).
[15]中国网络信息中心(China Internet Network Information Center,CINIC).第24次中国互联网发展统计报告. 2009.
[16] Wang EH, Sun XX, Qian TL. The Analysis of Differentia of Internet Development in China. Statistical Research. 2006, 08: 41-44.
[17] Mayhew DJ. The usability engineering lifecycle. Academic Press, 1999.
[18] Shakel B, Richardson E. In Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[19] Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. Academic Press. 1994.
[20] Hartson HR. Human-computer Interaction: interdisciplinary roots and trends. The Journal of System and Software. 1998, 43: 103-118.
[21] International Organization for Standardization. ISO/DIS 9241-11, Guidance on Usability. 1997.
[22] Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons Press, 2007.
[23] Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J. User-Centered Design. In Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Sage Press, 2004.
[24] Kuniavsky M. Observing the User Experience: A Practioner's Guide for User Research. Elsevier Science & Technology Books Press, 2003.
[25] Garrett JJ. The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web. New York, AIGA New Riders Press, 2002
[26] Mohammed RA. Internet Marketing: building advantage in the networked economy. McGraw-Hill Press, 2002.
[27] Arhippainen L. Capturing user experience for product design. (URL:http://www.msh-alpes.prd.fr/ADAMOS/material/arhippa2.pdf). 2009.
[28] Dam VN, Evers V, Arts FA. Cultural user experience issues in e-government: designig for a muti-cultural society. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Press, 2005, 3081: 310-324.
[29] Hassenzahl M. The quality of interactive products: Hedonic needs, emotions and experience. Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction. Idea Group Reference Press, 2005, 652-660.
[30] Deng SL. The Advancement of the Study on Foreign User Experience. Library and Information Service. 2008, 52(3): 43-45.
[31] Forlizzi J, Ford S. The building blocks of experience: an early framework for interaction designers. Proc. ACM SIGCHI'00 Conf. ACM. 2000, 419-423.
[32] Dewey J. Art as Experience. Perigee Press, 2005.
[33] Scherer KR. Introduction: Cognitive components of emotion. Handbook of the Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press, 2004, 563-571.
[34] Vyas D, Van Der Veer GC. APEC: A framework for designing experience. Infoscicornelledu. 2005, 2: 1-4.
[35] Card SK, Moran TP. Newell A. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. LEA Press, 1983.
[36] Molich R, Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proc. ACM SIGCHI'90 Conf. ACM. 1990, 249-256.
[37] Nielsen J. How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. (URL: http://www.useit.com/ papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html). 1994.
[38] Muller MJ, Matheson L, Page C, Gallup R. Participatory heuristic evaluation. Interactions. 1998, 05(5): 13-18.
[39] Nielsen J. Ten usability heuristics (URL: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/ heuristic_list.html). 1994.
[40] Lewis C, Polson PG, Wharton C, Rieman J. Testing a Walkthrough Methodology for Theory-Based Design of Walk-Up-and-Use Interfaces. Proc. ACM SIGCHI'90 Conf. ACM. 1990, 235-242.
[41] Wharton C, Lewis C, Polson P. The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A practitioner's guide. Nielsen J, Mack RL. Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
[42] Sears A, Hess D. Cognitive Walkthrough: understanding the effect of task-description detail on evaluator performance. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction. 1999, 11(3): 185-200.
[43] Jacobsen NE, John BE. Two Case Studies in Using Cognitive Walkthrough for Interface Evaluation. (URL: http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/usr/ anon/home/ftp/home/anon/2000/abstracts/00-132.html). Carnegie Mellon University. 2000 May.
[44] Zhou RG, Zhang K. Cognitive Walkthrough for Interface Usability Evaluation. Chinese Ergonomics. 2003, 9(3): 30-33.
[45] Lewis C, Wharton C. Cognitive walkthroughs. Helander MG, Landauer TK, Prabhu P. Handbook of Human-computer Interaction, Second Edition. Elsevier Science & Technology Books Press, 1997, 717-732.
[46] BlackmonM MH, Polson PG, Kitajima M, Lewis C. Cognitive walkthrough for the Web. Proc. ACM SIGCHI'02 Conf. ACM. 2002, 463-470.
[47] Taylor SE, Schroeder K. Inside Intuit: how the makers of Quicken beat Microsoft and revolutionized an entire industry. Harvard Business Press, 2003.
[48] Brown C. Usability Testing in Internet Time. Performance Improvement. 2002, 41(10): 40-46.
[49] Dumas JS, Redish J. A practical guide to usability testing. Intellect Press, 1999.
[50] Nielsen J. Why you only need to test with 5 users (URL: http://www.useit.com/ alertbox/20000319.html). 2000 Mar.
[51] Spool J, Schroeder W. Testing web sites: five users is nowhere near enough. ACM SIGCHI'01 Conf. ACM. 2001, 285-286.
[52] Caulton DA. Relaxing the homogeneity assumption in usability testing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2001, 20(1): 1-7.
[53] Schmettow M, Heterogeneity in the Usability Evaluation Process. Proc. HCI 2008 Conf, British Computing Society, 2008, 1: 89-98.
[54] Rubin J, Chisnell D. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[55] Cote RA. Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine. College of American Pathologists Press, 1977.
[56] DICOM. (URL: http://medical.nema.org/). 2009 Jul.
[57] Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC?). (URL: http://www.loinc.org/). 2009 Nov.
[58] Cote RA,李恩生译.国际医学规范术语全集(SNOMED International).北京医科大学出版社,中国协和医科大学出版社. 1997.
[59] Yang Y, Cui M. SNOMED发展概况与展望. Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2007, 14(2): 97-99.
[60] SNOMED Clinical Terms? (SNOMED CT?). (URL: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ research/umls/Snomed/snomed_main.html). 2009 Jul.
[61] IHTSDO SNOMED CT. (URL: http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/snomed-ct -publications). 2010 Jan.
[62] Spackman KA, Campbell KE. Compositional concept representation using SNOMED: towards further convergence of clinical terminologies. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998, 740-744.
[63] Lloyd BW, Barnett P. Use of problem lists in letters between hospital doctors and general practitioners. BMJ. 1993 Jan, 306(6872): 247.
[64] SNOMED CT Donwnload. (URL: http: //www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/ licensedcontent/downloads.html). 2009.
[65] 2009AB SNOMED CT Source Information. (URL: http: //www.nlm.nih.gov/ research/umls/sourcereleasedocs/2009AB/SNOMEDCT/). 2009.
[66] Guo YF, Liu BY, Cui M, Li P, Yang Y. Content Synopsis of SNOMED CT. Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2006, 13(7): 100-102.
[67] Guo YF, Liu BY, Zhou XZ. A detailed in troduction to SNOMED CT 2007's top-level concept hierarchies. Chinese Archives of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2008, 26(9): 1928-1932.
[68] Guo YF, Liu BY, Zhou XZ. Semantic Relationship and Linkage Concept of SNOMED CT. Chinese Archives of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2008, 26(10): 2206-2208.
[69] Guo YF, Liu BY, Zhou XZ. Conjunction in SNOMED CT 2007. Chinese Archives of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2008, 26(11): 2416-2423.
[70] Elkin PL, Brown SH, Husser CS, et al. Evaluation of the content coverage of SNOMED CT: ability of SNOMED clinical terms to represent clinical problem lists. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Jun, 81(6): 729-731.
[71] Zhong L, Lin DH, Lin XH. Characteristics of the SNOMED CT and its application. Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science. 2007, 16(2): 58-60.
[72] Yang Y, Cui M. The Development and Expectation of SNOMED CT. Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2007, 14(2): 97-99.
[73] Zhang PJ. The Present Situation and Development of Network Search Engine. Sci-Tech Information Development & Economy. 2008, 18(9): 156-157.
[74] Chen DP. A study on the All-in-One Search Page and Meta-Search Engine. Journal of Academic Library and Information Science. 2005, 23(1): 42-43+84.
[75] Su MM, Song W. Recent Advances in Solutions of Ontology-based Semantic Search Engine. New Technology of Library and Information Service. 2008, 171(11): 24-28.
[76] Lei YG, Uren V, Motta E. SemSearch: A Search Engine for the Semantic Web. Proc. EKAW 2006, Managing Know ledge in a World of Networks. 2006, 238-245.
[77] Celino I, Della Valle E, Cerizza D, Turati A. Squiggle: A Semantic Search Engine for Indexing and Retrieval of Multimedia Content. Proc. 1st International Workshop on SEMPS 2006. 2006.
[78] Lancaster FW, Fayen EG. Information Retrieval: On-Line. Melville Pub press, 1973.
[79] Chu HT, Rosenthal M. Search Engines for the World Wide Web: A Comparative Study and Evaluation Methodology. Proc. ASIS'96 Conf. 1996, 33: 127-135.
[80] Leighton HV, Srivastava J. First 20 precision among World Wide Web search services (search engines). Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1999, 50(10): 870-881.
[81] Han SL. Evaluation Measures for Network Information Retrieval Tools. Journal of The China Society For Scientific and Technical Information. 2001, 20(04): 471-477.
[82] Wang JJ. Comparative Study on the Evaluation Index Systems for Search Engine. Library And Information Service. 2008, 52(10): 136-138+116.
[83] Salton G, Lesk ME, Computer Evaluation of Indexing and Text Processing. Journal of ACM. 1968, 15(1): 8-36.
[84] Salton G, Fox EA, Wu H. Extended Boolean information retrieval. Communications of the ACM. 1983, 26(11): 1022-1036.
[85] Kleinberg J. Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment. Proc. ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1998, pp.668-677.
[86] Bharat K,Henzinger MR. Improved algorithms for topic distillation in a hyperlinked environment. Proc. 21st Intl. ACM SIGIR Conf. ACM. 1998, 104-111.
[87] Chakrabarti S, Dom B, Raghavan P, Gibson D, et al. Automatic resource compilation by analyzing hyperlink structure and associated text. Proc. 7th Intl. WWW'98 Conf. 1998, 65-74.
[88] Li LZ, Shang Y, Zhang W. Improvement of HITS-based Algorithms on Web Documents. Proc. 11th Intl. WWW'02 Conf. ACM. 2002, 527-535.
[89] Brin S, Page L. The Anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Proc. 7th Intl. WWW'98 Conf. & Computer Networks and ISDN Systems. 1998, 30(1-7): 107-117.
[90] Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Stanford Digital Libraries Technologies Project. 1998.
[91] Bergman MK. White Paper: The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value. Journal of Electronic Publishing. 2001, 7(1).
[92]中国网络信息中心(China Internet Network Information Center,CINIC). 2009年中国搜索引擎用户行为研究报告. 2009.
[93] Zou YL, Wang CQ. User's Factors Affecting the Retrieval Efficiency of Network Information. Information Studies: Theory & Application. 2008, 31(3): 374-376.
[94] iProspect. iProspect Search Engine User Attitudes. 2004.
[95] Baeza-Yates R, Ribeiro-Neto B. Modern information retrieval. ACM Press, 1999.
[96] Large A, Beheshti J, Rahman T. Gender differences in collaborative web searching behavior: an elementary school study. Information Processing & Management. 2002, 38(3): 427-443.
[97] Bilal D, Kirby J. Differences and similarities in information seeking: children and adults as web users. Information Processing and Management. 2002, 38(5): 649-670.
[98] Holscher C, Strube G. Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Proc. 9th Intl. WWW'00 Conf. 2000, 337-346.
[99] Huang MH. Pausal behavior of end-users in online searching. Information Processing and Management. 2003, 39(3): 425-444.
[100] Fox S, Rainie L. The online health care revolution: how the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2000.
[101] Eysenbach G. The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2003, 53(6): 356-371.
[102] Fox S. Health information online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. May 2005.
[103] Atkinson NL, Saperstein SL, Pleis J. Using the Internet for Health-Related Activities: Findings From a National Probability Sample. J Med Internet Res 2009, 11(1): e4.
[104] American Medical Association. Study on Physicians' Use of the World Wide Web. AMA Press, 2002.
[105] Greenwald R. And a diagnostic test was performed. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353(19): 2089-2890.
[106] Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: a systematic survey of advice and managing fever in children at home. BMJ. 1997, 314(7098): 1875-881.
[107] Steinbrook R. Searching for the right search - reaching the medical literature. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 4-7.
[108] Breckons M, Jones R, Morris J, Richardson J. What Do Evaluation Instruments Tell Us About the Quality of Complementary Medicine Information on the Internet? J Med Internet Res. 2008, 10(1): e3.
[109] Jeannot JG, Scherer F, Pittet V, et al. Use of the World Wide Web to Implement Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Feasibility Study. J Med Internet Res 2003, 5(2): e12.
[110] Tang H, Ng JHK. Googling for a diagnosis-use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study. Br Med J. 2006, 333: 1143-1145.
[111] Bio-Medicine News. How about Dr. Google? Search engine's prowess in medical diagnosis stumps researcher. (URL: http: //www.bio-medicine.org/ medicine-news/How-about-Dr--Google-3F--Search-engine-u2019s-prowess-in-medical-diagnosis-stumps-researcher-15711-1) Bio-Medicine News. Friday, November 10 2006.
[112] Laurance J. Researchers impressed by Google's medical diagnoses. (URL: http: //www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/researchers-impressed-by-googles-medical-diagnoses-423707.html). The Independent News. Friday, November 10 2006.
[113] Siempos II, Spanos A, Issaris EA, et al. Non-physicians may reach correct diagnoses by using Google: a pilot study. Swiss Med Wkly. 2008, 138(49-50): 741-745.
[114] Arora NK, Hesse BW, Rimer BK, et al. Frustrated and confused: the American public rates its cancer-related information seeking experiences. J Gen Intern Med. 2008, 23(3): 223-228.
[115] Helft PR. A new age for cancer information seeking: are we better off now? J Gen Intern Med. 2008, 23: 350-352.
[116] Chang P, Hou IC, Hsu CL, Lai HF. Are Google or Yahoo a Good Portal for Getting Quality Healthcare Web Information? AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006, 2006: 878.
[117] Helft PR. Breast cancer in the information age: a review of recent developments. Breast Disease. 2008, 21: 41-46.
[118] Java Excel API. (URL: http: //jexcelapi.sourceforge.net). JExcelApi. 2009.
[119] PageRank Checker Tool. (URL: http: //www.whatsmypagerank.com/). Whats my PageRank. 2009.
[120] Google PageRank Checker. (URL: http: //www.prchecker.info/). Page Rank Checker. 2009.
[121] Gordon M, Pathak P. Finding information on the World Wide Web: the retrieval effectiveness of search engines. Information Processing & Management 1999, 35(2): 141-180.
[122] Kobayashi M, Takeda K. Information retrieval on the Web. ACM Computing Surveys. 2000, 32(2): 144-173.
[123] Chakrabarti S, Dom BE, Kumar SR, et al. Mining the web's link structure. Computer. 1999, 32(8): 60-67.
[124] Google Search Engine Preferences (URL: http: //www.google.com/preferences). 2009.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |