Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23221176›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2012

Using binary classification to prioritize and curate articles for the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database.

Dina Vishnyakova, Emilie Pasche, Patrick Ruch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Dina VishnyakovaBibliomics and Text Mining Group, Geneva, Switzerland. dina.vishnyakova@hcuge.ch
Emilie Pasche
Patrick Ruch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report on the original integration of an automatic text categorization pipeline, so-called ToxiCat (Toxicogenomic Categorizer), that we developed to perform biomedical documents classification and prioritization in order to speed up the curation of the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD). The task can be basically described as a binary classification task, where a scoring function is used to rank a selected set of articles. Then components of a question-answering system are used to extract CTD-specific annotations from the ranked list of articles. The ranking function is generated using a Support Vector Machine, which combines three main modules: an information retrieval engine for MEDLINE (EAGLi), a gene normalization service (NormaGene) developed for a previous BioCreative campaign and finally, a set of answering components and entity recognizer for diseases and chemicals. The main components of the pipeline are publicly available both as web application and web services. The specific integration performed for the BioCreative competition is available via a web user interface at http://pingu.unige.ch:8080/Toxicat.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicToxicogeneticsDatabases, GeneticData MiningInternetMolecular Sequence AnnotationSemanticsSupport Vector MachineWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID23221176
PMCPMC3514750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.