Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17090325›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006

Automated recognition of malignancy mentions in biomedical literature.

Yang Jin, Ryan T McDonald, Kevin Lerman, Mark A Mandel, Steven Carroll, Mark Y Liberman, Fernando C Pereira, Raymond S Winters, Peter S White

Abstract 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. NEMO: Extraction and normalization of organization names from PubMed affiliations.Journal of biomedical discovery and collaboration · 2010
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Automated semantic indexing of figure captions to improve radiology image retrieval.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

9 authors.

Yang JinDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. yajin@mail.med.upenn.edu <yajin@mail.med.upenn.edu>
Ryan T McDonald
Kevin Lerman
Mark A Mandel
Steven Carroll
Mark Y Liberman
Fernando C Pereira
Raymond S Winters
Peter S White

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rapid proliferation of biomedical text makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to identify, synthesize, and utilize developed knowledge in their fields of interest. Automated information extraction procedures can assist in the acquisition and management of this knowledge. Previous efforts in biomedical text mining have focused primarily upon named entity recognition of well-defined molecular objects such as genes, but less work has been performed to identify disease-related objects and concepts. Furthermore, promise has been tempered by an inability to efficiently scale approaches in ways that minimize manual efforts and still perform with high accuracy. Here, we have applied a machine-learning approach previously successful for identifying molecular entities to a disease concept to determine if the underlying probabilistic model effectively generalizes to unrelated concepts with minimal manual intervention for model retraining.

resultsWe developed a named entity recognizer (MTag), an entity tagger for recognizing clinical descriptions of malignancy presented in text. The application uses the machine-learning technique Conditional Random Fields with additional domain-specific features. MTag was tested with 1,010 training and 432 evaluation documents pertaining to cancer genomics. Overall, our experiments resulted in 0.85 precision, 0.83 recall, and 0.84 F-measure on the evaluation set. Compared with a baseline system using string matching of text with a neoplasm term list, MTag performed with a much higher recall rate (92.1% vs. 42.1% recall) and demonstrated the ability to learn new patterns. Application of MTag to all MEDLINE abstracts yielded the identification of 580,002 unique and 9,153,340 overall mentions of malignancy. Significantly, addition of an extensive lexicon of malignancy mentions as a feature set for extraction had minimal impact in performance.

conclusionTogether, these results suggest that the identification of disparate biomedical entity classes in free text may be achievable with high accuracy and only moderate additional effort for each new application domain.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicTerminology as TopicAlgorithmsAutomationComputational BiologyDatabase Management SystemsHumansNeoplasmsPattern Recognition, AutomatedPhenotypePubMedSoftwareVocabulary, Controlled

Identifiers

PMID17090325
PMCPMC1657036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.