ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011
A comparison and user-based evaluation of models of textual information structure in the context of cancer risk assessment.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A survey on clinical natural language processing in the United Kingdom from 2007 to 2022.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Review
- Protein interaction network constructing based on text mining and reinforcement learning with application to prostate cancer.IET systems biology · 2015Article
- Automating Identification of Multiple Chronic Conditions in Clinical Practice Guidelines.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2015Article
- Automatic recognition of conceptualization zones in scientific articles and two life science applications.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2012Article
- Text mining for literature review and knowledge discovery in cancer risk assessment and research.PloS one · 2012Article
- Three hybrid classifiers for the detection of emotions in suicide notes.Biomedical informatics insights · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany practical tasks in biomedicine require accessing specific types of information in scientific literature; e.g. information about the results or conclusions of the study in question. Several schemes have been developed to characterize such information in scientific journal articles. For example, a simple section-based scheme assigns individual sentences in abstracts under sections such as Objective, Methods, Results and Conclusions. Some schemes of textual information structure have proved useful for biomedical text mining (BIO-TM) tasks (e.g. automatic summarization). However, user-centered evaluation in the context of real-life tasks has been lacking.
methodsWe take three schemes of different type and granularity--those based on section names, Argumentative Zones (AZ) and Core Scientific Concepts (CoreSC)--and evaluate their usefulness for a real-life task which focuses on biomedical abstracts: Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA). We annotate a corpus of CRA abstracts according to each scheme, develop classifiers for automatic identification of the schemes in abstracts, and evaluate both the manual and automatic classifications directly as well as in the context of CRA.
resultsOur results show that for each scheme, the majority of categories appear in abstracts, although two of the schemes (AZ and CoreSC) were developed originally for full journal articles. All the schemes can be identified in abstracts relatively reliably using machine learning. Moreover, when cancer risk assessors are presented with scheme annotated abstracts, they find relevant information significantly faster than when presented with unannotated abstracts, even when the annotations are produced using an automatic classifier. Interestingly, in this user-based evaluation the coarse-grained scheme based on section names proved nearly as useful for CRA as the finest-grained CoreSC scheme.
conclusionsWe have shown that existing schemes aimed at capturing information structure of scientific documents can be applied to biomedical abstracts and can be identified in them automatically with an accuracy which is high enough to benefit a real-life task in biomedicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.