ArticlePloS one2013
Using typed dependencies to study and recognise conceptualisation zones in biomedical literature.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.