Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25607983›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Generation of silver standard concept annotations from biomedical texts with special relevance to phenotypes.

Anika Oellrich, Nigel Collier, Damian Smedley, Tudor Groza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. PheKnow-Cloud: A Tool for Evaluating High-Throughput Phenotype Candidates using Online Medical Literature.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Anika OellrichWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom.
Nigel CollierEMBL European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SD, United Kingdom; National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan.
Damian SmedleyWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, United Kingdom.
Tudor GrozaSchool of ITEE, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia.

Funding

Mouse Phenotyping Informatics Infrastruture - MP12U54HG006370 · NHGRI · EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY · PI BROWN, STEVE, FLICEK, PAUL · 2011 to 2015
$11.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS 1 U54 HG006370-01NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG006370Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic health records and scientific articles possess differing linguistic characteristics that may impact the performance of natural language processing tools developed for one or the other. In this paper, we investigate the performance of four extant concept recognition tools: the clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (cTAKES), the National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) Annotator, the Biomedical Concept Annotation System (BeCAS) and MetaMap. Each of the four concept recognition systems is applied to four different corpora: the i2b2 corpus of clinical documents, a PubMed corpus of Medline abstracts, a clinical trails corpus and the ShARe/CLEF corpus. In addition, we assess the individual system performances with respect to one gold standard annotation set, available for the ShARe/CLEF corpus. Furthermore, we built a silver standard annotation set from the individual systems' output and assess the quality as well as the contribution of individual systems to the quality of the silver standard. Our results demonstrate that mainly the NCBO annotator and cTAKES contribute to the silver standard corpora (F1-measures in the range of 21% to 74%) and their quality (best F1-measure of 33%), independent from the type of text investigated. While BeCAS and MetaMap can contribute to the precision of silver standard annotations (precision of up to 42%), the F1-measure drops when combined with NCBO Annotator and cTAKES due to a low recall. In conclusion, the performances of individual systems need to be improved independently from the text types, and the leveraging strategies to best take advantage of individual systems' annotations need to be revised. The textual content of the PubMed corpus, accession numbers for the clinical trials corpus, and assigned annotations of the four concept recognition systems as well as the generated silver standard annotation sets are available from http://purl.org/phenotype/resources. The textual content of the ShARe/CLEF (https://sites.google.com/site/shareclefehealth/data) and i2b2 (https://i2b2.org/NLP/DataSets/) corpora needs to be requested with the individual corpus providers.

Indexed as

PhenotypeBiological OntologiesData MiningElectronic Health RecordsHumansNatural Language ProcessingPubMed

Identifiers

PMID25607983
PMCPMC4301805

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.