ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015
Exploring relation types for literature-based discovery.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Avoiding background knowledge: literature based discovery from important information.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- BioBERT and Similar Approaches for Relation Extraction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Combining Literature Mining and Machine Learning for Predicting Biomedical Discoveries.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Drug repurposing for COVID-19 via knowledge graph completion.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2021Article
- Using Literature Based Discovery to Gain Insights Into the Metabolomic Processes of Cardiac Arrest.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Literature-based discovery approaches for evidence-based healthcare: a systematic review.Health and technology · 2021Review
- Broad-coverage biomedical relation extraction with SemRep.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Article
- Indirect association and ranking hypotheses for literature based discovery.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Is automatic detection of hidden knowledge an anomaly?BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- A systematic review on literature-based discovery workflow.PeerJ. Computer science · 2019Article
- 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 · 2019Article
- Article
- Neural networks for link prediction in realistic biomedical graphs: a multi-dimensional evaluation of graph embedding-based approaches.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Quantifying and filtering knowledge generated by literature based discovery.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- The effect of word sense disambiguation accuracy on literature based discovery.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
- Extraction of chemical-induced diseases using prior knowledge and textual information.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.