Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18284683›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

MScanner: a classifier for retrieving Medline citations.

Graham L Poulter, Daniel L Rubin, Russ B Altman, Cathal Seoighe

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Mining biomedical images towards valuable information retrieval in biomedical and life sciences.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016
    Review
  5. Finding Related Publications: Extending the Set of Terms Used to Assess Article Similarity.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2016
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Accessing biomedical literature in the current information landscape.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2014
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison and combination of several MeSH indexing approaches.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2013
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A bottom-up approach to MEDLINE indexing recommendations.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2011
    Article
  20. PubMed and beyond: a survey of web tools for searching biomedical literature.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2011
    Review
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.

Graham L PoulterUCT NBN Node, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. graham.poulter@gmail.com
Daniel L Rubin
Russ B Altman
Cathal Seoighe

Funding

THE STANFORD PHARMACOGENETICS KNOWLEDGE BASEU01GM061374 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI ALTMAN, RUSS BIAGIO · 2000 to 2009
$24.0M
Stanford - South Africa Biomedical Informatics ProgramD43TW006993 · FIC · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI ALTMAN, RUSS BIAGIO · 2004 to 2008
$875k
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW006993FIC NIH HHS D43 TW06993NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM061374NIGMS NIH HHS U01GM61374
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKeyword searching through PubMed and other systems is the standard means of retrieving information from Medline. However, ad-hoc retrieval systems do not meet all of the needs of databases that curate information from literature, or of text miners developing a corpus on a topic that has many terms indicative of relevance. Several databases have developed supervised learning methods that operate on a filtered subset of Medline, to classify Medline records so that fewer articles have to be manually reviewed for relevance. A few studies have considered generalisation of Medline classification to operate on the entire Medline database in a non-domain-specific manner, but existing applications lack speed, available implementations, or a means to measure performance in new domains.

resultsMScanner is an implementation of a Bayesian classifier that provides a simple web interface for submitting a corpus of relevant training examples in the form of PubMed IDs and returning results ranked by decreasing probability of relevance. For maximum speed it uses the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and journal of publication as a concise document representation, and takes roughly 90 seconds to return results against the 16 million records in Medline. The web interface provides interactive exploration of the results, and cross validated performance evaluation on the relevant input against a random subset of Medline. We describe the classifier implementation, cross validate it on three domain-specific topics, and compare its performance to that of an expert PubMed query for a complex topic. In cross validation on the three sample topics against 100,000 random articles, the classifier achieved excellent separation of relevant and irrelevant article score distributions, ROC areas between 0.97 and 0.99, and averaged precision between 0.69 and 0.92.

conclusionMScanner is an effective non-domain-specific classifier that operates on the entire Medline database, and is suited to retrieving topics for which many features may indicate relevance. Its web interface simplifies the task of classifying Medline citations, compared to building a pre-filter and classifier specific to the topic. The data sets and open source code used to obtain the results in this paper are available on-line and as supplementary material, and the web interface may be accessed at http://mscanner.stanford.edu.

Indexed as

Database Management SystemsDatabases, FactualInformation Storage and RetrievalInternetMedical Subject HeadingsMEDLINESoftware

Identifiers

PMID18284683
PMCPMC2263023

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.