Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19208256›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2009

Sentence retrieval for abstracts of randomized controlled trials.

Grace Y Chung

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. UMLS-based data augmentation for natural language processing of clinical research literature.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Improving reference prioritisation with PICO recognition.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. A Corpus with Multi-Level Annotations of Patients, Interventions and Outcomes to Support Language Processing for Medical Literature.Proceedings of the conference. Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Mining the literature for genes associated with placenta-mediated maternal diseases.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    Article
  12. Extracting PICO Sentences from Clinical Trial Reports usingJournal of machine learning research : JMLR · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Grace Y ChungCentre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. gigigraceyc@gmail.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires clinicians to integrate their expertise with the latest scientific research. But this is becoming increasingly difficult with the growing numbers of published articles. There is a clear need for better tools to improve clinician's ability to search the primary literature. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the most reliable source of evidence documenting the efficacy of treatment options. This paper describes the retrieval of key sentences from abstracts of RCTs as a step towards helping users find relevant facts about the experimental design of clinical studies.

methodUsing Conditional Random Fields (CRFs), a popular and successful method for natural language processing problems, sentences referring to Intervention, Participants and Outcome Measures are automatically categorized. This is done by extending a previous approach for labeling sentences in an abstract for general categories associated with scientific argumentation or rhetorical roles: Aim, Method, Results and Conclusion. Methods are tested on several corpora of RCT abstracts. First structured abstracts with headings specifically indicating Intervention, Participant and Outcome Measures are used. Also a manually annotated corpus of structured and unstructured abstracts is prepared for testing a classifier that identifies sentences belonging to each category.

resultsUsing CRFs, sentences can be labeled for the four rhetorical roles with F-scores from 0.93-0.98. This outperforms the use of Support Vector Machines. Furthermore, sentences can be automatically labeled for Intervention, Participant and Outcome Measures, in unstructured and structured abstracts where the section headings do not specifically indicate these three topics. F-scores of up to 0.83 and 0.84 are obtained for Intervention and Outcome Measure sentences.

conclusionResults indicate that some of the methodological elements of RCTs are identifiable at the sentence level in both structured and unstructured abstract reports. This is promising in that sentences labeled automatically could potentially form concise summaries, assist in information retrieval and finer-grained extraction.

Indexed as

Abstracting and IndexingNatural Language ProcessingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansInformation Storage and Retrieval

Identifiers

PMID19208256
PMCPMC2657779

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.