<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>An eHealth Process Model of Visualization and Exploration to Support Improved Patient Discharge Record Understanding and Medical Knowledge Enhancement</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Harvey Hyman</string-name>
          <email>hhyman@Floridapolytechnic.org</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Warren Fridy</string-name>
          <email>Warren@H2WF3.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Florida Polytechnic University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Lakeland, Florida</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>H2 &amp; WF3 Research, LLC.</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Tampa, Florida</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>62</fpage>
      <lpage>78</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>In this paper we examine a two part information retrieval (IR) problem presented in Task 1, of how to design a visual interactive system, to foster better patient understanding of terminologies and vocabularies contained in a discharge summary, and how that system can be used to additionally support the patient's information retrieval need stemming therefrom. To address this problem set, we apply an IR process model, designed to support context learning and knowledge discovery, based on explicit-implicit and explorationexploitation schemes. We instantiate the process using an IT artifact (RetrivikaTM) designed to support the search of high volume, context oriented IR collections. The artifact has been built to support the process model, and has been previously validated by Hyman and Fridy in the IR domain of eDiscovery [1].</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd />
        <kwd>Information Retrieval</kwd>
        <kwd>Medical Retrieval</kwd>
        <kwd>Exploration</kwd>
        <kwd>Exploitation</kwd>
        <kwd>Explicit</kwd>
        <kwd>Implicit</kwd>
        <kwd>IR Process Model</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        We initialize the problem space with the operational definition of Information
Retrieval (IR) as the process of determining the presence or absence of relevant
documents that satisfy an information need [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. The problem space is motivated by the
increased reliance upon digital documentation to record everyday information such as
business transactions, agreements, medical records, and other information stored
electronically. This increased reliance has led to large volume collections from which
relevant documents must be extracted. In this research we are focused upon medical
discharge summaries and amplification of patient knowledge and understanding.
      </p>
      <p>
        Prior research has found that IR domains which are highly context and content
dependent can lead to under inclusion of relevant documents and over inclusion of
nonrelevant documents, resulting in poor performance when using automated methods
alone [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. We define the problem set in Task 1 as a context and content dependent
IR scenario.
2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Approach</title>
      <p>We begin our approach by classifying the problem set into two distinct needs:
knowledge and explanatory. We describe the first problem of how to improve patient
understanding of the discharge summary as a knowledge need. We define a
knowledge need as a situation whereby a user possesses information that is required
to be better understood. We model this first part as an explicit-implicit knowledge
problem.</p>
      <p>
        Explicit knowledge represents information that is common knowledge or readily
accessible to the layman. It is easily codified in written form and can be found in
manuals, documents, and various web media outlets (links, pages, etc.). Implicit
knowledge, on the other hand, represents information that is not commonly known. Its
meaning is often based upon specialized knowledge of a narrowly focused community
of experts in the area. This type of knowledge is sometimes called tacit knowledge
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Examples of terminologies that are implicit in their nature are local vocabularies,
jargon and slang expressions, unique to the specific domain of operation [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. Quite
often implicit knowledge is acquired through specialized training and experience
within the specified domain.
      </p>
      <p>We categorize the terminologies in the discharge summary as implicit, insofar as
their usage is operationalized as common parlance of the experts (doctors, nurses and
health professionals) and thereby outside the knowledge base of the layman patient.
The system objective here is to convert the implicit to the explicit, to achieve the
stated goal of better patient understanding. In this case, expanding the medical
terminologies from the discharge summary is accomplished through the use of a codified
(explicit) knowledge base: UMLS and SNOMED-CT.</p>
      <p>
        The methodology used for converting the implicit to the explicit is the IR Process
Model first proposed by Hyman et al., and the RetrivikaTM IT artifact [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. The
model is implemented using a human-computer interface, to facilitate the translation
of implicit knowledge recorded in the discharge summary to explicit knowledge for
the purpose of fostering better patient understanding.
      </p>
      <p>We describe the second problem of how to support a patient’s information
retrieval need as explanatory in nature. We define an explanatory need as a situation
whereby a user (in this case a patient) desires to amplify information about a specific topic
(in this case a condition contained in a discharge summary). We model this second
part as an exploration-exploitation problem described in the Foundation section of this
paper.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Foundation</title>
      <p>
        Exploration is an underlying construct representing the human search behavior [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ],
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]; it is operationalized in electronic search as browsing. The concept of exploration
has been associated with learning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ], familiarization [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ], and information
search [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. In fact, work done by Berlyne in the 1960s classifies exploration as a
“fundamental human activity” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Exploration that is goal directed is classified as extrinsic [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ]. Extrinsic
exploration typically has a specific task purpose, whereas intrinsic exploration is motivated
by learning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        The exploration-exploitation dilemma describes the decision to focus attention and
commit resources to the current selection versus abandoning it in favor of searching
for a new selection; hopefully bettering one’s position, but unknown until explored
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Browsing as an information seeking process has been established as a method
when the information need is ill-defined [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ]. Browsing has been described as a
fundamental information seeking function [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Holschler and Strube, examined the types of knowledge and strategies involved in
web-based information seeking [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ]. They found that users with higher levels of
knowledge were more flexible in their approaches and were better able to tackle
search problems than those who were less knowledgeable. They characterize the
information space as “diverse and often poorly organized content.”
      </p>
      <p>The IR process model and artifact discussed in this paper seek to organize the
information need stemming from the discharge summary around the subject matter
contain therein. Holschler and Strube’s finding that experts can outperform less
experienced users is a fundamental assumption for evaluating whether knowledge acquired
by exploration can improve a user’s ability to tackle the search problem of
information amplification. We specifically address this issue in the process model section
of the paper.
4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Assumptions</title>
      <p>There are several assumptions defined in this case. The first assumption is that the
information presented should contain some form of hierarchical clustering method for
categorization and sorting of the relevant documents extracted from a large corpus,
but not so much that it confuses the layman, who may not be exposed to common
clustering and sorting methods such as trees and visualization clusters.</p>
      <p>The second assumption is that each document may contain text, images and links
that need to be displayed in some rank order method.</p>
      <p>The third assumption is that the system should contain a visual interactive display
component that allows a user to navigate freely and easily among levels of the
hierarchical document clusters.</p>
      <p>The fourth assumption is that the user (in this case a patient) has a point of focus
from which their information need stems. For example, a discharge summary may
contain a diagnosis described using complex implicit terms that the patient wishes to
translate to explicit. It is the underlying assumption of a focused starting point that
drives the process as described in the next section.</p>
      <p>The fifth assumption is that the user (once again, the patient) will follow an
exploration-exploitation methodology (as described in the Foundation section) to achieve
their goal of better understanding by leveraging external information sources (web
sites and links).</p>
      <p>Not all assumptions are addressed in this paper. Some are too complex to handle
up front and will be addressed in later versions of the artifact.
5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Process Model</title>
      <p>We apply an IR process model designed to support user learning and knowledge
discovery to achieve an improved visual display to highlight implicit concepts, assist in
the explanation of context and support the exploration of medications, conditions and
health related topics for possible interactions with everyday items.</p>
      <p>The model was originally built upon the IR constructs of uncertainty, context and
relevance to support user driven learning, by leveraging explicit knowledge to
discover implicit knowledge from a large corpus of documents. In this case, we reverse the
model by converting the implicit knowledge contained in the discharge summaries to
explicit knowledge, by leveraging the internal, bounded collections of UMLS,
SNOMED-CT and external scale free search (web page contents from provided
URLs). We instantiate the adapted process model to support the
explorationexploitation system application.</p>
      <p>Fig. 1. IR Context Learning Process Model (Hyman et al.)</p>
      <p>
        The IR Process model originally proposed by Hyman et al., describes how a user’s
mental model of relevance (information sought) can be matched against candidate
documents, by applying an iterative and cyclic method of the three levels of
exploitation found in search behavior [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. The iterative process is designed to leverage known,
explicit knowledge to discover implicit knowledge found in a bounded information
collection.
      </p>
      <p>We have adapted the process to support two activities in this case. The first is to
take known, implicit terminologies and compare them against internal lexicons and
taxonomies (SNOMED and UMLS) to translate the terms to the explicit. The second
is to support user exploration of external information through the use of the
SnapshotTM artifact to translate the user’s mental model of relevance (in this case a
useful document that is informative on the subject), and produce suggested document
matches. This is explained in the next section.
6</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Original SnapshotTM Method</title>
      <p>We have developed a presentation method we call SnapshotTM. The method was first
proposed by Hyman and Fridy during their development of the commercial artifact
RetrivikaTM. The SnapshotTM presentation makes use of a document list and reading
pane, with the user’s search structure displayed above. The documents can be
clustered by topic or arranged in a hierarchical display. The user scans the document list
for the most likely relevant titles. Once a title is selected by the user, he/she may skim
the document using a reading pane. The user may become further committed and
scrutinize the document, by selecting on search terms presented in the top portion of
the screen. The selected search terms are highlighted within the displayed document.
Our design emphasizes use of different colors to communicate categories of
information across the several window pane displays. The SnapshotTM presentation method
illustrated in Figure 2, shows how the query terms, hierarchical listing of documents,
and highlighted selections are presented across the several window panes displayed in
the presentation screen. Our system design seeks to balance the multiple levels of
information amplification with an integrated means for user consumption.</p>
      <p>We will now describe the SnapshotTM appearing in Figure 2; it is designed to bring
together several dimensions of exploratory search methodologies in one screen. The
reader will note that there are two landscape text boxes at the top of the screen
display. These text boxes represent the user’s current search structure. The search
structure is bifurcated into inclusive search terms (indicated with green underline) and
exclusive search terms (indicated with red underline). Our prior research has found
that the use of exclusive terms is positively correlated with fewer false positives
(increased precision in the search result).</p>
      <p>The main body of the screen contains two panels. The left panel displays a list of
the returned documents by their titles. The right panel displays the document selected
from the list. We have enabled a find function so that the user may click on a term in
the search structure from above and the term will be highlighted within the selected
document. Our research has found that the use of this find function supports the
deeper, scrutinizing behavior described earlier in the paper.</p>
      <p>An additional element in the SnapshotTM that has not been carried over to the
adaptation here is the relevancy radio buttons. In our eDiscovery implementation, we
leveraged relevancy feedback to refactor our results presented in the next iterated
SnapshotTM.</p>
      <p>
        Here is how the system works. Prior research has shown that, when a user finds
multiple documents he or she will tend to switch back and forth, between items; this
activity can be supported via an iterative approach to information seeking [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Our previous experiments have found that three levels of search described in the
literature as exploratory, window, and evolved [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ], can be modeled as search
behaviors representing scanning, skimming and scrutinizing [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. Our model further
defines these behaviors as: Superficial, Deeper and Committed. The model
harmonizes both top-down and bottom-up approaches [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ], to provide support for the three
levels of search by implementing a multi-tiered and iterative, cyclic method.
      </p>
      <p>
        The RetrivikaTM artifact which instantiates the model is based on a method of
learning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>
        ], adapted from Active Learning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">23</xref>
        ], using relevance feedback
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">24</xref>
        ], balancing exploration-exploitation in an iterative cycle. We adapted the learning
method for the SnapshotTM approach by shifting the focus of the learner. The
traditional active learning technique is based on machine learning -- the system “learns”
the patterns and improves performance. In this case, it is the user who is learning; the
system simply supports the process.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Discussion of Initial Designs</title>
      <p>
        In this section we will take the reader through the development of our approach. We
began with several guiding principles for user interface (U/I) design [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">25</xref>
        ], to
implement our system display scheme for presentation of information in this case. They are
as follows: (1) Functions visible only when the user needs them, (2) Reduced need for
horizontal scrolling, (3) Effective use of ‘gutter space,’ (4) Information to screen
ratio, and (5) Minimum clicks. Our initial prototype design screens are depicted in
Figures 3 through 8 in this section, along with the narrative descriptions of how we
implemented the guiding principles.
      </p>
      <p>To implement this presentation, we wrote a simple program application to load the
Clef Task 1 data set into a SQL database. This allowed us to manipulate the rendering
of the discharge documents, to include a highlighting feature to support scanning
behavior, to assist in the presentation of the embedded medical terminologies within
the discharge summaries. We began with a simple and clean window to display the
discharge summary with a search box at the top of the screen. This is depicted in
Figure 3 below.
Next, we included a hover method to implement a call out feature to provide
amplifying information for the selected medical terminology. In the example depicted in
Figure 4, we are focusing on the condition of chronic alcohol-induced pancreatitis.</p>
      <p>Fig. 4. Discharge Summary with Added Mouse Hover Feature</p>
      <p>Next, we expanded the mouse hover feature to include the display of external
information links to support the patient’s knowledge acquisition (amplification) need.
This added feature is displayed in Figure 5.</p>
      <p>A close up rendering of the mouse hover feature with the incorporation of the
external links is depicted in Figure 6.
We also experimented with a collapsing window feature to accommodate all
information activities on one screen and thereby avoid the need for the user to switch
between multiple windows or screens. When the user submits a search request, the
display screen reduced the space of the discharge summary display in the window to
accommodate simultaneous viewing of the discharge document alongside a window
pane containing the clustered, hierarchical list of URLs comprised of potentially
amplifying information sources for the user to further select. This is depicted in Figure 7.
At this point in our research, we have not yet been able to tackle a ranking method for
the list. We will continue to work on that aspect in our next set of experimental
designs.</p>
      <p>Next, we experimented with how to implement the collapsing window feature to
support three window panes to display the discharge summary, hierarchical list of
documents and the amplified information for a user selected terminology. This is
depicted in Figure 8.</p>
      <p>Our choice of design in this instance seeks to minimize the need for horizontal
scrolling. We implement a single screen display designed to support the user’s ability
to shift between exploration and exploitation, and back again, without having to
navigate to a different screen or negotiate multiple windows. We have found that this
reduces the number of clicks needed to acquire information and also provides a
balanced ratio of information to screen proportional space.
We continued to develop the single screen design in Figure 9. This depiction is an
illustration of the coordinated information amplification display utilizing the three
window pane feature. The left side pane displays the original discharge summary with
the highlighted medical term. The upper right pane displays the URL page links in
ranked order of significance (ranking method not implemented in this paper). The
lower right pane presents the amplifying information for the user (patient) highlighted
medical term.
Fig. 9. Display of Discharge Summary, URL Links, Content from User Selected URL Source
8</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Adaptation of IR SnapshotTM Method to eHealth</title>
      <p>This section will describe our adaptation of the IR Process Model and SnapshotTM
to the CLEF Task 1 problem sets A and B, and present exemplars depicted over
several figures with accompanying narratives.</p>
      <p>Our first adaptation was how we displayed the search structure feature itself. This
modification is depicted in Figure 10. The feature was originally developed for
semiexpert search of a bounded corpus, where terminologies were not standardized
vocabularies. The patient information need in this case is based on standardized
vocabularies (medical terminologies from the discharge summary), and the search is bifurcated
into internal and external corpora. The internal corpus (SNOMED or UMLS) is
bounded, but the external corpus may be scale free (web pages and links).</p>
      <p>To address this difference in search structure application, we modified the feature
to account for the bifurcated nature of the internal versus the external orientation of
the information need by implementing two new functions: Search Results and Terms.
In Figure 10, the reader will note the two tabs named Search Results and Terms,
located on the right side of the display screen. The Search Results function displays
external content to support the patient’s information goal of amplification through
knowledge acquisition. The Terms function supports the patient’s knowledge
explanation goal using content from the internal, bounded corpora such as SNOMED and
UMLS.
Fig. 10. Modified Snapshot Feature Supports Discharge Summary and Terminology Search
Our second adaptation was the need to account for the information result being
effected by the individual attributes of the patient. To account for this, we maintained
the inclusive search box feature at the top of the screen and added a feature for the
patient to concatenate to the search structure, their individual demographics contained
within the discharge summary document. We include a Plus icon, to allow the patient
to toggle between including individual attributes and ignoring the attributes.</p>
      <p>Our next adaptation was the use of tab functions for the Search Results information
and the Terms information. This was based upon our initial experiments and feedback
from reviewers. We continued to adapt the SnapshotTM method to the discharge
summary documents in this problem set. We next discuss the evolution of our approach.</p>
      <p>As we ran through our simulations we continued to modify our collapsing screen
approach. Figure 12 and Figure 13 depict the modified SnapshotTM method
implementing the collapsing window approach to display the internal and the external
information sources implemented, using the tab functions Search Results and Terms.
Fig. 13. SnapshotTM Method Adapted for eHealth with Collapsing Window for Search Results
Fig. 15. Expansion of Search Results Tab, Collapsing Window to Shrink Discharge Summary
9</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>Results</title>
      <p>Our goal in this paper was to design and test a methodology for a framework to
improve patient understanding of the contents of a discharge summary. We divided the
goal into two objectives: increasing patient understanding and expanding patient
knowledge.</p>
      <p>We wanted to expand a patient’s knowledge base without losing fidelity in the
information retrieved. To accomplish this, we studied how users of the system (patients)
might formulate their information need. We found that, in general, a patient will
review their discharge document, and when they had come across a term they did not
understand, the immediate response was to seek out an explanation. This was
achieved through the use of the mouse hover as a presentation technique for the
UMLS/SNOMED definitions. If a patient needed more information, they would
choose to select on one of the links presented as an associated external source for the
term.</p>
      <p>Our original studies implementing the SnapshotTM for Legal-IR produced
significant results supporting improved document retrieval in bounded collections. In this
adaption of the model for Medical-IR, our limited testing conducted thus far has
produced encouraging results. We believe further development of this approach may
continue to improve patient understanding of information contained in discharge
summaries by supporting the patient in conducting external information search to
amplify knowledge of a term beyond the explicit definition supplied by internal
reference corpora, and thereby explain conditions and medical concepts using external
information sources. This two pronged approach addresses the content within the
discharge summary and the context of the implicit (tacit) medical terminology
requiring explanation AND amplification.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>Considerations</title>
      <p>Our initial results in this study have led us to some further considerations. First, we
found that the more we personalized the search feature, the system began to over fit
the patient’s attributes during the acquisition on external information sources. To
address this we measured the retrieval results using the context and attributes from the
discharge summary and the retrieval results without using the context and attributes.
This allowed us to isolate the patient’s ability to decouple the discharge specific
content for the external search query. We are still analyzing the data returned, and plan to
further study this phenomenon.</p>
      <p>The second consideration we found was that future applications of this model need
to account for a vetting process for the external links. In this case we used the
references common to the CLEF task. To make this system model more generalizable we
plan to work on a vetting method to assure reliability of the external information
sources.</p>
      <p>Another consideration had to do with the callout feature itself. We found in this
study that pulling the relevant medical terms from the discharge summary upon
opening, was the most effective means of indexing against the internal corpora (SNOMED
and UMLS).
11</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>This paper reports on an IR Process Model and an approach called SnapshotTM which
have been adapted from Legal-IR and modified for Medical-IR, to address the CLEF
eHealth Evaluation Lab 2014, Task 1, A &amp; B. We introduced the IR process model
and SnapshotTM artifact previously implemented in the domain of eDiscovery, and
have applied it to the Task 1 problem stated and the data set provided. We welcome
feedback and suggestions for how we can improve our approach and methods, and are
interested in collaborating with other researchers to continue to address ways to
improve patient understanding. Correspondence is best done through the email addresses
listed at the beginning of this paper.
12</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hyman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H. S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fridy</surname>
            <given-names>III</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , W., “
          <article-title>Using Exploration and Learning for Medical Records Search: An Experiment in Identifying Cohorts for Comparative Effectiveness Research,” NIST Special Publication</article-title>
          , Proceedings: Text Retrieval Conference (TREC)
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Van</given-names>
            <surname>Rijsbergen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C. J</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Information</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Retrieval</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Butterworth, London, Boston.
          <year>1979</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Grossman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Cormack</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>G.</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>V.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review,”</article-title>
          <source>Richmond Journal of Law and Technology</source>
          , Volume
          <volume>27</volume>
          ,
          <source>Issue</source>
          <volume>3</volume>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Oard</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D. W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Baron</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hedin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lewis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D. D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tomlinson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Evaluation of Information Retrieval for E-discovery</article-title>
          ,
          <source>” Artificial Intelligence and Law</source>
          ,
          <volume>18</volume>
          :
          <fpage>347</fpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Polyani</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Personal Knowledge:
          <article-title>Towards a Post Critical Philosophy</article-title>
          , London: Routledge (
          <year>1958</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hyman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H. S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sincich</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Will</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Agrawal</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fridy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Padmanabhan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>“A Process Model for Information Retrieval Context Learning and Knowledge Discovery,” (under review).</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hyman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H. S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>Applied Information Science Approaches for Technology and Business Processes</source>
          , (Release,
          <year>2015</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Holscher</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Strube</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>“Web Search Behavior of Internet Experts and Newbies,” Cite as: www9</article-title>
          .org/w9cdrom/81/81.html.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Muylle</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Moenaert</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Despontin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>“A Grounded Theory of World Wide Web Search Behavior,”</article-title>
          <source>Journal of Marketing Communications, Available Online (09 Dec</source>
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Berlyne</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>E.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Motivational Problems Raised by Exploratory and Epistemic Behavior,” Psychology: A Study of Science</article-title>
          , Vol.
          <volume>5</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>284</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>364</lpage>
          , New York: McGraw Hill (
          <year>1963</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>March</surname>
            , J.,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>“Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning</article-title>
          ,” Organizational Science,
          <volume>2</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), (
          <year>1991</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barnett</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>A.</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>A Study in Behavior. London: Methuen</source>
          (
          <year>1963</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Debowski</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wood</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Bandura</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>A.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Impact of Guided Exploration and Enactive Exploration on Self-Regulatory Mechanisms and Information Acquisition Through Electronic Search,”</article-title>
          <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>86</volume>
          , No.
          <volume>6</volume>
          , (
          <year>2001</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Demangeot</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Broderick</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>J.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Exploration and Its Manifestations in the Context of Online Shopping,”</article-title>
          <source>Journal of Marketing Management</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>26</volume>
          , No.
          <fpage>13</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>14</lpage>
          , (December,
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Berlyne</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Conflict</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Arousal and Curiosity, New York: McGraw Hill (
          <year>1960</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kuhlthau</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>“Inside the Search Process: Information Seeking from the User's Perspective,”</article-title>
          <source>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>42</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>361</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>371</lpage>
          (
          <year>1991</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17.
          <string-name>
            <surname>McKay</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shukla</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hunt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cunningham</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , J., “Enhancing Browsing in Digital Libraries: Three New Approaches to Browsing in Greenstone,”
          <source>International Journal of Digital Libraries</source>
          , (
          <year>2004</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          18.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bates</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>J.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “Information Search Tactics,”
          <article-title>Journal of the American Society for Information Science</article-title>
          , July, (
          <year>1979</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          19.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bates</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>J.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>The Design of Browsing and Berry Picking Techniques for the Online Search Interface</article-title>
          ,” Online Review,
          <volume>13</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ), (
          <year>1989</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          20.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Broder</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , “A Taxonomy of Web Search,” IBM Research,
          <source>SIGIR Forum</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>36</volume>
          , No.
          <volume>2</volume>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>(Fall</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2002</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          21.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Navarro-Prieto</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scaife</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rogers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , “Cognitive Strategies in Web Searching,”
          <article-title>Cited as: zing</article-title>
          .ncsl.nist.gov/hfweb/proceedings/Navarro-Prieto/index.html.
          <source>(June 3</source>
          ,
          <year>1999</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          22.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hills</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            , T.
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>The Central Executive as a Search Process: Priming Exploration</article-title>
          and Exploitation Across Domains,
          <source>” Journal of Experimental Psychology</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>139</volume>
          , No.
          <volume>4</volume>
          , (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <mixed-citation>
          23.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zheng</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Padmanabhan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Selectively Acquiring Customer Information: A New data Acquisition Problem and an Active Learning-Based Solution,” Management Science</article-title>
          , Volume
          <volume>52</volume>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Number</surname>
            <given-names>5</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>May</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref24">
        <mixed-citation>
          24.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schweighofer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Geist</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>“Legal Query Expansion Using Ontologies and Relevance Feedback,” TREC Conference</source>
          <year>2008</year>
          , Proceedings.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref25">
        <mixed-citation>
          25.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hyman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H. S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>System</surname>
            <given-names>Acquisition</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Integration and Implementation for Engineers and</article-title>
          IT Professionals, Sentia Publishing, (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>