Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16762065›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006

Argument-predicate distance as a filter for enhancing precision in extracting predications on the genetic etiology of disease.

Marco Masseroli, Halil Kilicoglu, François-Michel Lang, Thomas C Rindflesch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Mining Biomedical Literature to Explore Interactions between Cancer Drugs and Dietary Supplements.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2015
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparing a Rule Based vs. Statistical System for Automatic Categorization of MEDLINE Documents According to Biomedical Specialty.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology : JASIST · 2009
    Article
  11. Semantic relations for interpreting DNA microarray data.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2009
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Computational approaches to phenotyping: high-throughput phenomics.Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society · 2007
    Review
  16. An overview of MetaMap: historical perspective and recent advances.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marco MasseroliBioengineering Department, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. masseroli@biomed.polimi.it
Halil Kilicoglu
François-Michel Lang
Thomas C Rindflesch
National Center for Biotechnology Information · USPolitecnico di Milano · IT

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic functional information is valuable for biomedical research. However, such information frequently needs to be extracted from the scientific literature and structured in order to be exploited by automatic systems. Natural language processing is increasingly used for this purpose although it inherently involves errors. A postprocessing strategy that selects relations most likely to be correct is proposed and evaluated on the output of SemGen, a system that extracts semantic predications on the etiology of genetic diseases. Based on the number of intervening phrases between an argument and its predicate, we defined a heuristic strategy to filter the extracted semantic relations according to their likelihood of being correct. We also applied this strategy to relations identified with co-occurrence processing. Finally, we exploited postprocessed SemGen predications to investigate the genetic basis of Parkinson's disease.

resultsThe filtering procedure for increased precision is based on the intuition that arguments which occur close to their predicate are easier to identify than those at a distance. For example, if gene-gene relations are filtered for arguments at a distance of 1 phrase from the predicate, precision increases from 41.95% (baseline) to 70.75%. Since this proximity filtering is based on syntactic structure, applying it to the results of co-occurrence processing is useful, but not as effective as when applied to the output of natural language processing. In an effort to exploit SemGen predications on the etiology of disease after increasing precision with postprocessing, a gene list was derived from extracted information enhanced with postprocessing filtering and was automatically annotated with GFINDer, a Web application that dynamically retrieves functional and phenotypic information from structured biomolecular resources. Two of the genes in this list are likely relevant to Parkinson's disease but are not associated with this disease in several important databases on genetic disorders.

conclusionInformation based on the proximity postprocessing method we suggest is of sufficient quality to be profitably used for subsequent applications aimed at uncovering new biomedical knowledge. Although proximity filtering is only marginally effective for enhancing the precision of relations extracted with co-occurrence processing, it is likely to benefit methods based, even partially, on syntactic structure, regardless of the relation.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingSoftwareGenetic Diseases, InbornGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalParkinson DiseaseSemantics

Identifiers

PMID16762065
PMCPMC1564420
OpenAlexW1600005654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.