ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2014
Automatic generation of investigator bibliographies for institutional research networking systems.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scalable scientific interest profiling using large language models.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- The role of information science within the clinical translational science ecosystem.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Bridging the gap in author names: building an enhanced author name dataset for biomedical literature system.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- ReCiter: An open source, identity-driven, authorship prediction algorithm optimized for academic institutions.PloS one · 2021Article
- Dynamically generating T32 training documents using structured data.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
- Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018Article
- Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Review
- Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePublications are a key data source for investigator profiles and research networking systems. We developed ReCiter, an algorithm that automatically extracts bibliographies from PubMed using institutional information about the target investigators.
methodsReCiter executes a broad query against PubMed, groups the results into clusters that appear to constitute distinct author identities and selects the cluster that best matches the target investigator. Using information about investigators from one of our institutions, we compared ReCiter results to queries based on author name and institution and to citations extracted manually from the Scopus database. Five judges created a gold standard using citations of a random sample of 200 investigators.
resultsAbout half of the 10,471 potential investigators had no matching citations in PubMed, and about 45% had fewer than 70 citations. Interrater agreement (Fleiss' kappa) for the gold standard was 0.81. Scopus achieved the best recall (sensitivity) of 0.81, while name-based queries had 0.78 and ReCiter had 0.69. ReCiter attained the best precision (positive predictive value) of 0.93 while Scopus had 0.85 and name-based queries had 0.31. DISCUSSION: ReCiter accesses the most current citation data, uses limited computational resources and minimizes manual entry by investigators. Generation of bibliographies using named-based queries will not yield high accuracy. Proprietary databases can perform well but requite manual effort. Automated generation with higher recall is possible but requires additional knowledge about investigators.
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.