Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21138947›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2011

Toward an automatic method for extracting cancer- and other disease-related point mutations from the biomedical literature.

Emily Doughty, Attila Kertesz-Farkas, Olivier Bodenreider, Gary Thompson, Asa Adadey, Thomas Peterson, Maricel G Kann

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. LSD600: the first corpus of biomedical abstracts annotated with lifestyle-disease relations.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. MantaID: a machine learning-based tool to automate the identification of biological database IDs.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily DoughtyUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA.
Attila Kertesz-Farkas
Olivier Bodenreider
Gary Thompson
Asa Adadey
Thomas Peterson
Maricel G Kann
United States Food and Drug Administration · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County · US

Funding

The MARC U*STAR Program at UMBCT34GM008663 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY · PI ROBINSON, PHYLLIS R · 1997 to 2019
$21.9M
Informatic Profiling of Clinically Relevant MutationR01LM009722 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MOONEY, SEAN DAVID · 2007 to 2014
$3.5M
Protein domains as molecular units to unravel functional pathways of cancer genesK22CA143148 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY · PI KANN, MARICEL G. · 2009 to 2011
$490k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 LM999999NCI NIH HHS 1K22CA143148NCI NIH HHS K22 CA143148NIGMS NIH HHS T34 GM008663NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009722NLM NIH HHS R01LM009722
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationA major goal of biomedical research in personalized medicine is to find relationships between mutations and their corresponding disease phenotypes. However, most of the disease-related mutational data are currently buried in the biomedical literature in textual form and lack the necessary structure to allow easy retrieval and visualization. We introduce a high-throughput computational method for the identification of relevant disease mutations in PubMed abstracts applied to prostate (PCa) and breast cancer (BCa) mutations.

resultsWe developed the extractor of mutations (EMU) tool to identify mutations and their associated genes. We benchmarked EMU against MutationFinder--a tool to extract point mutations from text. Our results show that both methods achieve comparable performance on two manually curated datasets. We also benchmarked EMU's performance for extracting the complete mutational information and phenotype. Remarkably, we show that one of the steps in our approach, a filter based on sequence analysis, increases the precision for that task from 0.34 to 0.59 (PCa) and from 0.39 to 0.61 (BCa). We also show that this high-throughput approach can be extended to other diseases. DISCUSSION: Our method improves the current status of disease-mutation databases by significantly increasing the number of annotated mutations. We found 51 and 128 mutations manually verified to be related to PCa and Bca, respectively, that are not currently annotated for these cancer types in the OMIM or Swiss-Prot databases. EMU's retrieval performance represents a 2-fold improvement in the number of annotated mutations for PCa and BCa. We further show that our method can benefit from full-text analysis once there is an increase in Open Access availability of full-text articles. AVAILABILITY: Freely available at: http://bioinf.umbc.edu/EMU/ftp.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, FactualPublicationsComputational BiologyHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalNeoplasmsPoint MutationReproducibility of ResultsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID21138947
PMCPMC3031038
OpenAlexW2155518941

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.