ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011
Cost sensitive hierarchical document classification to triage PubMed abstracts for manual curation.
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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of epitopes in prostate-specific antigens identifies opportunities and knowledge gaps.Human immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Curation at Scale with EPITOME: Extraction Pipeline for Immunological Texts and Open-Source Multimodal Enquiry.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The Cancer Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (CEDAR): current capabilities and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- The Cancer Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (CEDAR).Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- The Cancer Epitope Database and Analysis Resource: A Blueprint for the Establishment of a New Bioinformatics Resource for Use by the Cancer Immunology Community.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- A behind-the-scenes tour of the IEDB curation process: an optimized process empirically integrating automation and human curation efforts.Immunology · 2020Article
- The Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource Program 2003-2018: reflections and outlook.Immunogenetics · 2020Review
- BioReader: a text mining tool for performing classification of biomedical literature.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Low HLA binding of diabetes-associated CD8+ T-cell epitopes is increased by post translational modifications.BMC immunology · 2018Article
- Investigation of Outbreak-Specific Nonsynonymous Mutations on Ebolavirus GP in the Context of Known Immune Reactivity.Journal of immunology research · 2018Article
- TANTIGEN: a comprehensive database of tumor T cell antigens.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2017Article
- The Immune Epitope Database: How Data Are Entered and Retrieved.Journal of immunology research · 2017Article
- Identifying Candidate Targets of Immune Responses in Zika Virus Based on Homology to Epitopes in Other Flavivirus Species.PLoS currents · 2016Article
- Automatic Generation of Validated Specific Epitope Sets.Journal of immunology research · 2015Article
- Navigating diabetes-related immune epitope data: resources and tools provided by the Immune Epitope Database (IEDB).Immunome research · 2013Article
- Article
- A comparison of epitope repertoires associated with myasthenia gravis in humans and nonhuman hosts.Autoimmune diseases · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) project manually curates information from published journal articles that describe immune epitopes derived from a wide variety of organisms and associated with different diseases. In the past, abstracts of scientific articles were retrieved by broad keyword queries of PubMed, and were classified as relevant (curatable) or irrelevant (not curatable) to the scope of the database by a Naïve Bayes classifier. The curatable abstracts were subsequently manually classified into categories corresponding to different disease domains. Over the past four years, we have examined how to further improve this approach in order to enhance classification performance and to reduce the need for manual intervention.
resultsUtilizing 89,884 abstracts classified by a domain expert as curatable or uncuratable, we found that a SVM classifier outperformed the previously used Naïve Bayes classifier for curatability predictions with an AUC of 0.899 and 0.854, respectively. Next, using a non-hierarchical and a hierarchical application of SVM classifiers trained on 22,833 curatable abstracts manually classified into three levels of disease specific categories we demonstrated that a hierarchical application of SVM classifiers outperformed non-hierarchical SVM classifiers for categorization. Finally, to optimize the hierarchical SVM classifiers' error profile for the curation process, cost sensitivity functions were developed to avoid serious misclassifications. We tested our design on a benchmark dataset of 1,388 references and achieved an overall category prediction accuracy of 94.4%, 93.9%, and 82.1% at the three levels of categorization, respectively.
conclusionsA hierarchical application of SVM algorithms with cost sensitive output weighting enabled high quality reference classification with few serious misclassifications. This enabled us to significantly reduce the manual component of abstract categorization. Our findings are relevant to other databases that are developing their own document classifier schema and the datasets we make available provide large scale real-life benchmark sets for method developers.
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.