ArticlePloS one2015
Figure-associated text summarization and evaluation.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of automatic text summarization for biomedical literature and EHRs.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Pooled it
- [Chinese introduction to the Preferred Reporting Items for Randomized Trials in Endodontics 2020 checklist].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Article
- Computerized continuous scoring of the cognitive style figure test: Embedded figure test as an example.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Statistical plots in oncologic imaging, a primer for neuroradiologists.The neuroradiology journal · 2024Review
- Clinical Research Informatics: Supporting the Research Study Lifecycle.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Biomedical literature incorporates millions of figures, which are a rich and important knowledge resource for biomedical researchers. Scientists need access to the figures and the knowledge they represent in order to validate research findings and to generate new hypotheses. By themselves, these figures are nearly always incomprehensible to both humans and machines and their associated texts are therefore essential for full comprehension. The associated text of a figure, however, is scattered throughout its full-text article and contains redundant information content. In this paper, we report the continued development and evaluation of several figure summarization systems, the FigSum+ systems, that automatically identify associated texts, remove redundant information, and generate a text summary for every figure in an article. Using a set of 94 annotated figures selected from 19 different journals, we conducted an intrinsic evaluation of FigSum+. We evaluate the performance by precision, recall, F1, and ROUGE scores. The best FigSum+ system is based on an unsupervised method, achieving F1 score of 0.66 and ROUGE-1 score of 0.97. The annotated data is available at figshare.com (http://figshare.com/articles/Figure_Associated_Text_Summarization_and_Evaluation/858903).
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.