Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23282288›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2012

GLAD4U: deriving and prioritizing gene lists from PubMed literature.

Jérôme Jourquin, Dexter Duncan, Zhiao Shi, Bing Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Single-cell genomics and regulatory networks for 388 human brains.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Jérôme JourquinDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 400 Eskind Biomedical Library, 2209 Garland Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Dexter Duncan
Zhiao Shi
Bing Zhang

Funding

TrainingU54CA113007 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO · 2004 to 2014
$19.2M
Project 6 Interactions of Serotonin and Circadian Signaling NetworksP50MH078028 · NIMH · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI SNODDY, JAY R · 2007 to 2011
$9.8M
Systems Approach to the Biological Basis of Colon Cancer MetastasesR01GM088822 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BEAUCHAMP, ROBERT DANIEL, ZHANG, BING · 2009 to 2012
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS U54CA113007NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM088822NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM088822NIMH NIH HHS P50MH078028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnswering questions such as "Which genes are related to breast cancer?" usually requires retrieving relevant publications through the PubMed search engine, reading these publications, and creating gene lists. This process is not only time-consuming, but also prone to errors.

resultsWe report GLAD4U (Gene List Automatically Derived For You), a new, free web-based gene retrieval and prioritization tool. GLAD4U takes advantage of existing resources of the NCBI to ensure computational efficiency. The quality of gene lists created by GLAD4U for three Gene Ontology (GO) terms and three disease terms was assessed using corresponding "gold standard" lists curated in public databases. For all queries, GLAD4U gene lists showed very high recall but low precision, leading to low F-measure. As a comparison, EBIMed's recall was consistently lower than GLAD4U, but its precision was higher. To present the most relevant genes at the top of a list, we studied two prioritization methods based on publication count and the hypergeometric test, and compared the ranked lists and those generated by EBIMed to the gold standards. Both GLAD4U methods outperformed EBIMed for all queries based on a variety of quality metrics. Moreover, the hypergeometric method allowed for a better performance by thresholding genes with low scores. In addition, manual examination suggests that many false-positives could be explained by the incompleteness of the gold standards. The GLAD4U user interface accepts any valid queries for PubMed, and its output page displays the ranked gene list and information associated with each gene, chronologically-ordered supporting publications, along with a summary of the run and links for file export and functional enrichment and protein interaction network analysis.

conclusionsGLAD4U has a high overall recall. Although precision is generally low, the prioritization methods successfully rank truly relevant genes at the top of the lists to facilitate efficient browsing. GLAD4U is simple to use, and its interface can be found at: http://bioinfo.vanderbilt.edu/glad4u.

Indexed as

SoftwareDatabases, FactualInformation Storage and RetrievalInternetPubMedUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID23282288
PMCPMC3535723

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.