Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21685060›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2011

MeSH: a window into full text for document summarization.

Sanmitra Bhattacharya, Viet Ha-Thuc, Padmini Srinivasan

Abstract 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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Online Databases in Circular RNAs.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Web tools to perform long non-coding RNAs analysis in oncology research.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. PubMedMiner: Mining and Visualizing MeSH-based Associations in PubMed.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2014
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors.

Sanmitra BhattacharyaDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. sanmitra-bhattacharya@uiowa.edu
Viet Ha-Thuc
Padmini Srinivasan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationPrevious research in the biomedical text-mining domain has historically been limited to titles, abstracts and metadata available in MEDLINE records. Recent research initiatives such as TREC Genomics and BioCreAtIvE strongly point to the merits of moving beyond abstracts and into the realm of full texts. Full texts are, however, more expensive to process not only in terms of resources needed but also in terms of accuracy. Since full texts contain embellishments that elaborate, contextualize, contrast, supplement, etc., there is greater risk for false positives. Motivated by this, we explore an approach that offers a compromise between the extremes of abstracts and full texts. Specifically, we create reduced versions of full text documents that contain only important portions. In the long-term, our goal is to explore the use of such summaries for functions such as document retrieval and information extraction. Here, we focus on designing summarization strategies. In particular, we explore the use of MeSH terms, manually assigned to documents by trained annotators, as clues to select important text segments from the full text documents.

resultsOur experiments confirm the ability of our approach to pick the important text portions. Using the ROUGE measures for evaluation, we were able to achieve maximum ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-SU4 F-scores of 0.4150, 0.1435 and 0.1782, respectively, for our MeSH term-based method versus the maximum baseline scores of 0.3815, 0.1353 and 0.1428, respectively. Using a MeSH profile-based strategy, we were able to achieve maximum ROUGE F-scores of 0.4320, 0.1497 and 0.1887, respectively. Human evaluation of the baselines and our proposed strategies further corroborates the ability of our method to select important sentences from the full texts. CONTACT: sanmitra-bhattacharya@uiowa.edu; padmini-srinivasan@uiowa.edu.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalMedical Subject HeadingsMEDLINEUnited States

Identifiers

PMID21685060
PMCPMC3117369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.