Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24694772›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2014

Automatic generation of investigator bibliographies for institutional research networking systems.

Stephen B Johnson, Michael E Bales, Daniel Dine, Suzanne Bakken, Paul J Albert, Chunhua Weng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dynamically generating T32 training documents using structured data.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019
    Article
  6. Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

6 authors.

Stephen B JohnsonDepartment of Public Health, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States. Electronic address: johnsos@med.cornell.edu.
Michael E BalesDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, United States.
Daniel DineDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, United States; The Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University, New York, United States.
Suzanne BakkenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, United States; The Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University, New York, United States.
Paul J AlbertSamuel J. Wood Library, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States.
Chunhua WengDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, United States; The Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University, New York, United States.

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024996 · NCRR · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI IMPERATO-MCGINLEY, JULIANNE L · 2007 to 2011
$49.6M
Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000457 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI IMPERATO-MCGINLEY, JULIANNE L · 2012 to 2016
$46.0M
Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000040 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2012 to 2015
$26.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000040NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000457NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024996
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsAuthorshipNatural Language ProcessingAbstracting and IndexingArtificial IntelligenceBibliographies as TopicBiomedical ResearchData MiningPattern Recognition, AutomatedPubMedSocial NetworkingVocabulary, ControlledAuthorshipAutomatedBibliography as topicMEDLINENatural language processingPattern recognition

Identifiers

PMID24694772
PMCPMC4180817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.