Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23327936›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2013

An overview of the BioCreative 2012 Workshop Track III: interactive text mining task.

Cecilia N Arighi, Ben Carterette, K Bretonnel Cohen, Martin Krallinger, W John Wilbur, Petra Fey, Robert Dodson, Laurel Cooper, Ceri E Van Slyke, Wasila Dahdul and 31 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. CafeteriaSA corpus: scientific abstracts annotated across different food semantic resources.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022
    Article
  2. Overview of the COVID-19 text mining tool interactive demonstration track in BioCreative VII.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Evidence and Conclusion Ontology (ECO): Supporting GO Annotations.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. BioCreative V BioC track overview: collaborative biocurator assistant task for BioGRID.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016
    Article
  20. Overview of the interactive task in BioCreative V.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016
    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

41 authors.

Cecilia N ArighiCenter for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711, USA. arighi@dbi.udel.edu
Ben Carterette
K Bretonnel Cohen
Martin Krallinger
W John Wilbur
Petra Fey
Robert Dodson
Laurel Cooper
Ceri E Van Slyke
Wasila Dahdul
Paula Mabee
Donghui Li
Bethany Harris
Marc Gillespie
Silvia Jimenez
Phoebe Roberts
Lisa Matthews
Kevin Becker
Harold Drabkin
Susan Bello
Luana Licata
Andrew Chatr-aryamontri
Mary L Schaeffer
Julie Park
Melissa Haendel
Kimberly Van Auken
Yuling Li
Juancarlos Chan
Hans-Michael Muller
Hong Cui
James P Balhoff
Johnny Chi-Yang Wu
Zhiyong Lu
Chih-Hsuan Wei
Catalina O Tudor
Kalpana Raja
Suresh Subramani
Jeyakumar Natarajan
Juan Miguel Cejuela
Pratibha Dubey
Cathy Wu

Funding

Mouse Genome DatabaseU41HG000330 · NHGRI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI BLAKE, JUDITH A, BULT, CAROL J · 2011 to 2020
$45.5M
Named Entity Recognition and Relationship Extraction in BiomedicineZIALM091813 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LU, ZHIYONG · 2013 to 2022
$13.4M
Natural Language Processing Techniques To Enhance Information Access.ZIALM000090 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI WILBUR, WILLY · 2009 to 2015
$3.4M
General and Semi-supervised Machine Learning Applied to BioinformaticsZIALM000089 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI WILBUR, WILLY · 2009 to 2015
$3.2M
Bioinformatic Analysis of the Genetics of Common Complex DiseasesZICAG000613 · NIA · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING · PI DE, SUPRIYO · 2010 to 2025
$3.1M
Free Text Gene Name RecognitionZIALM000093 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI WILBUR, WILLY · 2009 to 2015
$1.6M
A Document Processing SystemZIALM000022 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI WILBUR, WILLY · 2009 to 2015
$1.3M
Linking Text Mining and Data Mining for Biomedical Knowledge DiscoveryG08LM010720 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · PI WU, CATHY H. · 2010 to 2012
$438k
NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG000330NLM NIH HHS 5G08LM010720-02NLM NIH HHS G08 LM010720
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many databases, biocuration primarily involves literature curation, which usually involves retrieving relevant articles, extracting information that will translate into annotations and identifying new incoming literature. As the volume of biological literature increases, the use of text mining to assist in biocuration becomes increasingly relevant. A number of groups have developed tools for text mining from a computer science/linguistics perspective, and there are many initiatives to curate some aspect of biology from the literature. Some biocuration efforts already make use of a text mining tool, but there have not been many broad-based systematic efforts to study which aspects of a text mining tool contribute to its usefulness for a curation task. Here, we report on an effort to bring together text mining tool developers and database biocurators to test the utility and usability of tools. Six text mining systems presenting diverse biocuration tasks participated in a formal evaluation, and appropriate biocurators were recruited for testing. The performance results from this evaluation indicate that some of the systems were able to improve efficiency of curation by speeding up the curation task significantly (∼1.7- to 2.5-fold) over manual curation. In addition, some of the systems were able to improve annotation accuracy when compared with the performance on the manually curated set. In terms of inter-annotator agreement, the factors that contributed to significant differences for some of the systems included the expertise of the biocurator on the given curation task, the inherent difficulty of the curation and attention to annotation guidelines. After the task, annotators were asked to complete a survey to help identify strengths and weaknesses of the various systems. The analysis of this survey highlights how important task completion is to the biocurators' overall experience of a system, regardless of the system's high score on design, learnability and usability. In addition, strategies to refine the annotation guidelines and systems documentation, to adapt the tools to the needs and query types the end user might have and to evaluate performance in terms of efficiency, user interface, result export and traditional evaluation metrics have been analyzed during this task. This analysis will help to plan for a more intense study in BioCreative IV.

Indexed as

Data MiningEducationDatabases as TopicDocumentationHumansSoftwareTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23327936
PMCPMC3625048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.