ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012
Automatic recognition of conceptualization zones in scientific articles and two life science applications.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contexts and contradictions: a roadmap for computational drug repurposing with knowledge inference.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Review
- Biomedical text mining for research rigor and integrity: tasks, challenges, directions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Identification of research hypotheses and new knowledge from scientific literature.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Accelerating annotation of articles via automated approaches: evaluation of the neXtA5 curation-support tool by neXtProt.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2018Article
- Literature evidence in open targets - a target validation platform.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2017Article
- Automated detection of discourse segment and experimental types from the text of cancer pathway results sections.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016Article
- Article
- Section level search functionality in Europe PMC.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2015Article
- A supervised approach to quantifying sentence similarity: with application to evidence based medicine.PloS one · 2015Article
- Dynamic enhancement of drug product labels to support drug safety, efficacy, and effectiveness.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2013Article
- Using typed dependencies to study and recognise conceptualisation zones in biomedical literature.PloS one · 2013Article
- Recognizing scientific artifacts in biomedical literature.Biomedical informatics insights · 2013Article
- Text-mining solutions for biomedical research: enabling integrative biology.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2012Review
- Extracting semantically enriched events from biomedical literature.BMC bioinformatics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationScholarly biomedical publications report on the findings of a research investigation. Scientists use a well-established discourse structure to relate their work to the state of the art, express their own motivation and hypotheses and report on their methods, results and conclusions. In previous work, we have proposed ways to explicitly annotate the structure of scientific investigations in scholarly publications. Here we present the means to facilitate automatic access to the scientific discourse of articles by automating the recognition of 11 categories at the sentence level, which we call Core Scientific Concepts (CoreSCs). These include: Hypothesis, Motivation, Goal, Object, Background, Method, Experiment, Model, Observation, Result and Conclusion. CoreSCs provide the structure and context to all statements and relations within an article and their automatic recognition can greatly facilitate biomedical information extraction by characterizing the different types of facts, hypotheses and evidence available in a scientific publication.
resultsWe have trained and compared machine learning classifiers (support vector machines and conditional random fields) on a corpus of 265 full articles in biochemistry and chemistry to automatically recognize CoreSCs. We have evaluated our automatic classifications against a manually annotated gold standard, and have achieved promising accuracies with 'Experiment', 'Background' and 'Model' being the categories with the highest F1-scores (76%, 62% and 53%, respectively). We have analysed the task of CoreSC annotation both from a sentence classification as well as sequence labelling perspective and we present a detailed feature evaluation. The most discriminative features are local sentence features such as unigrams, bigrams and grammatical dependencies while features encoding the document structure, such as section headings, also play an important role for some of the categories. We discuss the usefulness of automatically generated CoreSCs in two biomedical applications as well as work in progress. AVAILABILITY: A web-based tool for the automatic annotation of articles with CoreSCs and corresponding documentation is available online at http://www.sapientaproject.com/software http://www.sapientaproject.com also contains detailed information pertaining to CoreSC annotation and links to annotation guidelines as well as a corpus of manually annotated articles, which served as our training data. CONTACT: liakata@ebi.ac.uk SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.