Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26261718›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2014

Micropublications: a semantic model for claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications.

Tim Clark, Paolo N Ciccarese, Carole A Goble

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The FAIRSCAPE AI-readiness Framework for Biomedical Research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Towards Knowledge Maintenance in Scientific Digital Libraries with the Keystone Framework.Proceedings of the ... ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Identifying main finding sentences in clinical case reports.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Tim ClarkDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA ; Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA ; School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Paolo N CiccareseDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA ; Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Carole A GobleSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

THE ROLE OF ADVANCED CAA IN ALZHEIMER'S DEMENTIAP50AG005134 · NIA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HYMAN, BRADLEY T. · 1985 to 2018
$42.1M
Research Education ComponentP30AG062421 · NIA · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Christine S Ritchie · 2019 to 2026
$36.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062421NIA NIH HHS P50 AG005134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScientific publications are documentary representations of defeasible arguments, supported by data and repeatable methods. They are the essential mediating artifacts in the ecosystem of scientific communications. The institutional "goal" of science is publishing results. The linear document publication format, dating from 1665, has survived transition to the Web. Intractable publication volumes; the difficulty of verifying evidence; and observed problems in evidence and citation chains suggest a need for a web-friendly and machine-tractable model of scientific publications. This model should support: digital summarization, evidence examination, challenge, verification and remix, and incremental adoption. Such a model must be capable of expressing a broad spectrum of representational complexity, ranging from minimal to maximal forms.

resultsThe micropublications semantic model of scientific argument and evidence provides these features. Micropublications support natural language statements; data; methods and materials specifications; discussion and commentary; challenge and disagreement; as well as allowing many kinds of statement formalization. The minimal form of a micropublication is a statement with its attribution. The maximal form is a statement with its complete supporting argument, consisting of all relevant evidence, interpretations, discussion and challenges brought forward in support of or opposition to it. Micropublications may be formalized and serialized in multiple ways, including in RDF. They may be added to publications as stand-off metadata. An OWL 2 vocabulary for micropublications is available at http://purl.org/mp. A discussion of this vocabulary along with RDF examples from the case studies, appears as OWL Vocabulary and RDF Examples in Additional file 1.

conclusionMicropublications, because they model evidence and allow qualified, nuanced assertions, can play essential roles in the scientific communications ecosystem in places where simpler, formalized and purely statement-based models, such as the nanopublications model, will not be sufficient. At the same time they will add significant value to, and are intentionally compatible with, statement-based formalizations. We suggest that micropublications, generated by useful software tools supporting such activities as writing, editing, reviewing, and discussion, will be of great value in improving the quality and tractability of biomedical communications.

Indexed as

AnnotationArgumentationData citationDigital abstractMethods citationNanopublicationsResearch reproducibilityScientific discourseScientific evidence

Identifiers

PMID26261718
PMCPMC4530550

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.