Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22280404›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012

Automatic categorization of diverse experimental information in the bioscience literature.

Ruihua Fang, Gary Schindelman, Kimberly Van Auken, Jolene Fernandes, Wen Chen, Xiaodong Wang, Paul Davis, Mary Ann Tuli, Steven J Marygold, Gillian Millburn and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Figure and caption extraction from biomedical documents.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Can we replace curation with information extraction software?Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016
    Review
  18. Article
  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

15 authors.

Ruihua FangHoward Hughes Medical Institute and Biology Division, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Gary Schindelman
Kimberly Van Auken
Jolene Fernandes
Wen Chen
Xiaodong Wang
Paul Davis
Mary Ann Tuli
Steven J Marygold
Gillian Millburn
Beverley Matthews
Haiyan Zhang
Nick Brown
William M Gelbart
Paul W Sternberg

Funding

FLYBASE: A DROSOPHILA RELATIONAL DATABASEP41HG000739 · NHGRI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI GELBART, WILLIAM MARTIN · 1992 to 2014
$56.6M
Wormbase SupplementP41HG002223 · NHGRI · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI STERNBERG, PAUL WARREN · 2000 to 2012
$32.0M
Textpresso: information retrieval and extraction system for biological literatureR01HG004090 · NHGRI · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI MULLER, HANS-MICHAEL · 2006 to 2012
$2.1M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG000739NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG002223NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG002223-10S1NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG004090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCuration of information from bioscience literature into biological knowledge databases is a crucial way of capturing experimental information in a computable form. During the biocuration process, a critical first step is to identify from all published literature the papers that contain results for a specific data type the curator is interested in annotating. This step normally requires curators to manually examine many papers to ascertain which few contain information of interest and thus, is usually time consuming. We developed an automatic method for identifying papers containing these curation data types among a large pool of published scientific papers based on the machine learning method Support Vector Machine (SVM). This classification system is completely automatic and can be readily applied to diverse experimental data types. It has been in use in production for automatic categorization of 10 different experimental datatypes in the biocuration process at WormBase for the past two years and it is in the process of being adopted in the biocuration process at FlyBase and the Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD). We anticipate that this method can be readily adopted by various databases in the biocuration community and thereby greatly reducing time spent on an otherwise laborious and demanding task. We also developed a simple, readily automated procedure to utilize training papers of similar data types from different bodies of literature such as C. elegans and D. melanogaster to identify papers with any of these data types for a single database. This approach has great significance because for some data types, especially those of low occurrence, a single corpus often does not have enough training papers to achieve satisfactory performance.

resultsWe successfully tested the method on ten data types from WormBase, fifteen data types from FlyBase and three data types from Mouse Genomics Informatics (MGI). It is being used in the curation work flow at WormBase for automatic association of newly published papers with ten data types including RNAi, antibody, phenotype, gene regulation, mutant allele sequence, gene expression, gene product interaction, overexpression phenotype, gene interaction, and gene structure correction.

conclusionsOur methods are applicable to a variety of data types with training set containing several hundreds to a few thousand documents. It is completely automatic and, thus can be readily incorporated to different workflow at different literature-based databases. We believe that the work presented here can contribute greatly to the tremendous task of automating the important yet labor-intensive biocuration effort.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDatabases, FactualDatabases, GeneticAnimalsAutomationCaenorhabditis elegansDrosophila melanogasterGenomicsMicePublicationsSupport Vector Machine

Identifiers

PMID22280404
PMCPMC3305665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.