ReviewFrontiers in systems neuroscience2014
A practical application of text mining to literature on cognitive rehabilitation and enhancement through neurostimulation.
Review in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brain augmentation and neuroscience technologies: current applications, challenges, ethics and future prospects.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022Review
- A Text Mining Pipeline Using Active and Deep Learning Aimed at Curating Information in Computational Neuroscience.Neuroinformatics · 2019Article
- Neurotechnologies for Human Cognitive Augmentation: Current State of the Art and Future Prospects.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Review
- Automatic target validation based on neuroscientific literature mining for tractography.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The exponential growth in publications represents a major challenge for researchers. Many scientific domains, including neuroscience, are not yet fully engaged in exploiting large bodies of publications. In this paper, we promote the idea to partially automate the processing of scientific documents, specifically using text mining (TM), to efficiently review big corpora of publications. The "cognitive advantage" given by TM is mainly related to the automatic extraction of relevant trends from corpora of literature, otherwise impossible to analyze in short periods of time. Specifically, the benefits of TM are increased speed, quality and reproducibility of text processing, boosted by rapid updates of the results. First, we selected a set of TM-tools that allow user-friendly approaches of the scientific literature, and which could serve as a guide for researchers willing to incorporate TM in their work. Second, we used these TM-tools to obtain basic insights into the relevant literature on cognitive rehabilitation (CR) and cognitive enhancement (CE) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). TM readily extracted the diversity of TMS applications in CR and CE from vast corpora of publications, automatically retrieving trends already described in published reviews. TMS emerged as one of the important non-invasive tools that can both improve cognitive and motor functions in numerous neurological diseases and induce modulations/enhancements of many fundamental brain functions. TM also revealed trends in big corpora of publications by extracting occurrence frequency and relationships of particular subtopics. Moreover, we showed that CR and CE share research topics, both aiming to increase the brain's capacity to process information, thus supporting their integration in a larger perspective. Methodologically, despite limitations of a simple user-friendly approach, TM served well the reviewing process.
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.