Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24260252›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Using typed dependencies to study and recognise conceptualisation zones in biomedical literature.

Tudor Groza

Abstract read
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Tudor GrozaSchool of Information, Telecommunications, and Electronics Engineering, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the biomedical domain, authors publish their experiments and findings using a quasi-standard coarse-grained discourse structure, which starts with an introduction that sets up the motivation, continues with a description of the materials and methods, and concludes with results and discussions. Over the course of the years, there has been a fair amount of research done in the area of scientific discourse analysis, with a focus on performing automatic recognition of scientific artefacts/conceptualisation zones from the raw content of scientific publications. Most of the existing approaches use Machine Learning techniques to perform classification based on features that rely on the shallow structure of the sentence tokens, or sentences as a whole, in addition to corpus-driven statistics. In this article, we investigate the role carried by the deep (dependency) structure of the sentences in describing their rhetorical nature. Using association rule mining techniques, we study the presence of dependency structure patterns in the context of a given rhetorical type, the use of these patterns in exploring differences in structure between the rhetorical types, and their ability to discriminate between the different rhetorical types. Our final goal is to provide a series of insights that can be used to complement existing classification approaches. Experimental results show that, in particular in the context of a fine-grained multi-class classification context, the association rules emerged from the dependency structure are not able to produce uniform classification results. However, they can be used to derive discriminative pair-wise classification mechanisms, in particular for some of the most ambiguous types.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchLiteratureArtificial IntelligenceData Mining

Identifiers

PMID24260252
PMCPMC3832541

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.