Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23613709›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Text mining effectively scores and ranks the literature for improving chemical-gene-disease curation at the comparative toxicogenomics database.

Allan Peter Davis, Thomas C Wiegers, Robin J Johnson, Jean M Lay, Kelley Lennon-Hopkins, Cynthia Saraceni-Richards, Daniela Sciaky, Cynthia Grondin Murphy, Carolyn J Mattingly

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Narrative Literature Review of Natural Language Processing Applied to the Occupational Exposome.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Chemical-Induced Phenotypes at CTD Help Inform the Predisease State and Construct Adverse Outcome Pathways.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Allan Peter DavisDepartment of Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America. apdavis3@ncsu.edu
Thomas C Wiegers
Robin J Johnson
Jean M Lay
Kelley Lennon-Hopkins
Cynthia Saraceni-Richards
Daniela Sciaky
Cynthia Grondin Murphy
Carolyn J Mattingly

Funding

The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD)R01ES014065 · NIEHS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI DAVIS, ALLAN PETER, MATTINGLY, CAROLYN J. · 2006 to 2021
$10.5M
Generation of a centralized and integrated resource for exposure dataR01ES019604 · NIEHS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI MATTINGLY, CAROLYN J. · 2011 to 2015
$1.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES014065NIEHS NIH HHS R01-ES014065NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES019604NIEHS NIH HHS R01-ES019604
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD; http://ctdbase.org/) is a public resource that curates interactions between environmental chemicals and gene products, and their relationships to diseases, as a means of understanding the effects of environmental chemicals on human health. CTD provides a triad of core information in the form of chemical-gene, chemical-disease, and gene-disease interactions that are manually curated from scientific articles. To increase the efficiency, productivity, and data coverage of manual curation, we have leveraged text mining to help rank and prioritize the triaged literature. Here, we describe our text-mining process that computes and assigns each article a document relevancy score (DRS), wherein a high DRS suggests that an article is more likely to be relevant for curation at CTD. We evaluated our process by first text mining a corpus of 14,904 articles triaged for seven heavy metals (cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel). Based upon initial analysis, a representative subset corpus of 3,583 articles was then selected from the 14,094 articles and sent to five CTD biocurators for review. The resulting curation of these 3,583 articles was analyzed for a variety of parameters, including article relevancy, novel data content, interaction yield rate, mean average precision, and biological and toxicological interpretability. We show that for all measured parameters, the DRS is an effective indicator for scoring and improving the ranking of literature for the curation of chemical-gene-disease information at CTD. Here, we demonstrate how fully incorporating text mining-based DRS scoring into our curation pipeline enhances manual curation by prioritizing more relevant articles, thereby increasing data content, productivity, and efficiency.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualMolecular Sequence AnnotationPublicationsToxicogeneticsAlgorithmsData MiningDiseaseDocumentationHumansMetals, HeavyReproducibility of ResultsMetals, Heavy

Identifiers

PMID23613709
PMCPMC3629079

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.