ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2012
A mutation-centric approach to identifying pharmacogenomic relations in text.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- PGxCorpus, a manually annotated corpus for pharmacogenomics.Scientific data · 2020Article
- eGARD: Extracting associations between genomic anomalies and drug responses from text.PloS one · 2017Article
- Using semantic predications to uncover drug-drug interactions in clinical data.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2014Article
- Literature mining of genetic variants for curation: quantifying the importance of supplementary material.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014Article
- Mutation extraction tools can be combined for robust recognition of genetic variants in the literature.F1000Research · 2014Article
- Towards precision medicine: advances in computational approaches for the analysis of human variants.Journal of molecular biology · 2013Review
- Getting personalized cancer genome analysis into the clinic: the challenges in bioinformatics.Genome medicine · 2012Review
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
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the notion of mutation-centric pharmacogenomic relation extraction and to evaluate our approach against reference pharmacogenomic relations.
methodsFrom a corpus of MEDLINE abstracts relevant to genetic variation, we identify co-occurrences between drug mentions extracted using MetaMap and RxNorm, and genetic variants extracted by EMU. The recall of our approach is evaluated against reference relations curated manually in PharmGKB. We also reviewed a random sample of 180 relations in order to evaluate its precision.
resultsOne crucial aspect of our strategy is the use of biological knowledge for identifying specific genetic variants in text, not simply gene mentions. On the 104 reference abstracts from PharmGKB, the recall of our mutation-centric approach is 33-46%. Applied to 282,000 abstracts from MEDLINE, our approach identifies pharmacogenomic relations in 4534 abstracts, with a precision of 65%.
conclusionsCompared to a relation-centric approach, our mutation-centric approach shows similar recall, but slightly lower precision. We show that both approaches have limited overlap in their results, but are complementary and can be used in combination. Rather than a solution for the automatic curation of pharmacogenomic knowledge, we see these high-throughput approaches as tools to assist biocurators in the identification of pharmacogenomic relations of interest from the published literature. This investigation also identified three challenging aspects of the extraction of pharmacogenomic relations, namely processing full-text articles, sequence validation of DNA variants and resolution of genetic variants to reference databases, such as dbSNP.
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.