ArticlePloS one2012
Connecting the dots between PubMed abstracts.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic review on literature-based discovery workflow.PeerJ. Computer science · 2019Article
- Rediscovering Don Swanson: the Past, Present and Future of Literature-Based Discovery.Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland) · 2017Article
- Narratives in the network: interactive methods for mining cell signaling networks.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are now a multitude of articles published in a diversity of journals providing information about genes, proteins, pathways, and diseases. Each article investigates subsets of a biological process, but to gain insight into the functioning of a system as a whole, we must integrate information from multiple publications. Particularly, unraveling relationships between extra-cellular inputs and downstream molecular response mechanisms requires integrating conclusions from diverse publications. METHODOLOGY: We present an automated approach to biological knowledge discovery from PubMed abstracts, suitable for "connecting the dots" across the literature. We describe a storytelling algorithm that, given a start and end publication, typically with little or no overlap in content, identifies a chain of intermediate publications from one to the other, such that neighboring publications have significant content similarity. The quality of discovered stories is measured using local criteria such as the size of supporting neighborhoods for each link and the strength of individual links connecting publications, as well as global metrics of dispersion. To ensure that the story stays coherent as it meanders from one publication to another, we demonstrate the design of novel coherence and overlap filters for use as post-processing steps.
conclusionsWE DEMONSTRATE THE APPLICATION OF OUR STORYTELLING ALGORITHM TO THREE CASE STUDIES: i) a many-one study exploring relationships between multiple cellular inputs and a molecule responsible for cell-fate decisions, ii) a many-many study exploring the relationships between multiple cytokines and multiple downstream transcription factors, and iii) a one-to-one study to showcase the ability to recover a cancer related association, viz. the Warburg effect, from past literature. The storytelling pipeline helps narrow down a scientist's focus from several hundreds of thousands of relevant documents to only around a hundred stories. We argue that our approach can serve as a valuable discovery aid for hypothesis generation and connection exploration in large unstructured biological knowledge bases.
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.