Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25037308›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2014

Text-mining-assisted biocuration workflows in Argo.

Rafal Rak, Riza Theresa Batista-Navarro, Andrew Rowley, Jacob Carter, Sophia Ananiadou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Text mining resources for the life sciences.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Overview of the interactive task in BioCreative V.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Scaling drug indication curation through crowdsourcing.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2015
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Rafal RakNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK and Department of Computer Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines rafal.rak@manchester.ac.uk.
Riza Theresa Batista-NavarroNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK and Department of Computer Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, PhilippinesNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK and Department of Computer Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines.
Andrew RowleyNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK and Department of Computer Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines.
Jacob CarterNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK and Department of Computer Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines.
Sophia AnaniadouNational Centre for Text Mining, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK and Department of Computer Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biocuration activities have been broadly categorized into the selection of relevant documents, the annotation of biological concepts of interest and identification of interactions between the concepts. Text mining has been shown to have a potential to significantly reduce the effort of biocurators in all the three activities, and various semi-automatic methodologies have been integrated into curation pipelines to support them. We investigate the suitability of Argo, a workbench for building text-mining solutions with the use of a rich graphical user interface, for the process of biocuration. Central to Argo are customizable workflows that users compose by arranging available elementary analytics to form task-specific processing units. A built-in manual annotation editor is the single most used biocuration tool of the workbench, as it allows users to create annotations directly in text, as well as modify or delete annotations created by automatic processing components. Apart from syntactic and semantic analytics, the ever-growing library of components includes several data readers and consumers that support well-established as well as emerging data interchange formats such as XMI, RDF and BioC, which facilitate the interoperability of Argo with other platforms or resources. To validate the suitability of Argo for curation activities, we participated in the BioCreative IV challenge whose purpose was to evaluate Web-based systems addressing user-defined biocuration tasks. Argo proved to have the edge over other systems in terms of flexibility of defining biocuration tasks. As expected, the versatility of the workbench inevitably lengthened the time the curators spent on learning the system before taking on the task, which may have affected the usability of Argo. The participation in the challenge gave us an opportunity to gather valuable feedback and identify areas of improvement, some of which have already been introduced. Database URL: http://argo.nactem.ac.uk.

Indexed as

InternetSoftwareData CurationData MiningHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationTime FactorsUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID25037308
PMCPMC4103424

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.