Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25971437›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015

Exploring relation types for literature-based discovery.

Judita Preiss, Mark Stevenson, Robert Gaizauskas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. BioBERT and Similar Approaches for Relation Extraction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Drug repurposing for COVID-19 via knowledge graph completion.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A Literature Based Discovery Visualization System with Hierarchical Clustering and Linking Set Associations.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Extraction of chemical-induced diseases using prior knowledge and textual information.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016
    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

3 authors.

Judita PreissDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Sheffield 211 Portobello, Sheffield S1 4DP, UK j.preiss@sheffield.ac.uk.
Mark StevensonDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Sheffield 211 Portobello, Sheffield S1 4DP, UK.
Robert GaizauskasDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Sheffield 211 Portobello, Sheffield S1 4DP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLiterature-based discovery (LBD) aims to identify "hidden knowledge" in the medical literature by: (1) analyzing documents to identify pairs of explicitly related concepts (terms), then (2) hypothesizing novel relations between pairs of unrelated concepts that are implicitly related via a shared concept to which both are explicitly related. Many LBD approaches use simple techniques to identify semantically weak relations between concepts, for example, document co-occurrence. These generate huge numbers of hypotheses, difficult for humans to assess. More complex techniques rely on linguistic analysis, for example, shallow parsing, to identify semantically stronger relations. Such approaches generate fewer hypotheses, but may miss hidden knowledge. The authors investigate this trade-off in detail, comparing techniques for identifying related concepts to discover which are most suitable for LBD. MATERIALS AND

methodsA generic LBD system that can utilize a range of relation types was developed. Experiments were carried out comparing a number of techniques for identifying relations. Two approaches were used for evaluation: replication of existing discoveries and the "time slicing" approach.(1)

resultsPrevious LBD discoveries could be replicated using relations based either on document co-occurrence or linguistic analysis. Using relations based on linguistic analysis generated many fewer hypotheses, but a significantly greater proportion of them were candidates for hidden knowledge. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe use of linguistic analysis-based relations improves accuracy of LBD without overly damaging coverage. LBD systems often generate huge numbers of hypotheses, which are infeasible to manually review. Improving their accuracy has the potential to make these systems significantly more usable.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingInformation Storage and RetrievalLinguisticsknowledge discoveryliterature based discoverynatural language processingtext mining

Identifiers

PMID25971437
PMCPMC4986660

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.