Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26428294›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2016

Cell line name recognition in support of the identification of synthetic lethality in cancer from text.

Suwisa Kaewphan, Sofie Van Landeghem, Tomoko Ohta, Yves Van de Peer, Filip Ginter, Sampo Pyysalo

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. OGER++: hybrid multi-type entity recognition.Journal of cheminformatics · 2019
    Article
  5. DataMed - an open source discovery index for finding biomedical datasets.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Suwisa KaewphanTurku Centre for Computer Science (TUCS), 20520 Turku, Finland, Department of Information Technology, University of Turku, 20014, Finland, University of Turku Graduate School (UTUGS), University of Turku, 20014, Finland.
Sofie Van LandeghemDepartment of Plant Systems Biology, VIB, Ghent 9000, Belgium, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Ghent 9052, Belgium.
Tomoko OhtaTextimi, Tokyo, Japan.
Yves Van de PeerDepartment of Plant Systems Biology, VIB, Ghent 9000, Belgium, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Ghent 9052, Belgium, Bioinformatics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, Genomics Research Institute, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa and.
Filip GinterDepartment of Information Technology, University of Turku, 20014, Finland.
Sampo PyysaloDepartment of Information Technology, University of Turku, 20014, Finland, Language Technology Lab (LTL), University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9DA, United Kingdom.
University of Turku · FIUniversity of Pretoria · ZAVIB-UGent Center for Plant Systems Biology · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationThe recognition and normalization of cell line names in text is an important task in biomedical text mining research, facilitating for instance the identification of synthetically lethal genes from the literature. While several tools have previously been developed to address cell line recognition, it is unclear whether available systems can perform sufficiently well in realistic and broad-coverage applications such as extracting synthetically lethal genes from the cancer literature. In this study, we revisit the cell line name recognition task, evaluating both available systems and newly introduced methods on various resources to obtain a reliable tagger not tied to any specific subdomain. In support of this task, we introduce two text collections manually annotated for cell line names: the broad-coverage corpus Gellus and CLL, a focused target domain corpus.

resultsWe find that the best performance is achieved using NERsuite, a machine learning system based on Conditional Random Fields, trained on the Gellus corpus and supported with a dictionary of cell line names. The system achieves an F-score of 88.46% on the test set of Gellus and 85.98% on the independently annotated CLL corpus. It was further applied at large scale to 24 302 102 unannotated articles, resulting in the identification of 5 181 342 cell line mentions, normalized to 11 755 unique cell line database identifiers. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The manually annotated datasets, the cell line dictionary, derived corpora, NERsuite models and the results of the large-scale run on unannotated texts are available under open licenses at http://turkunlp.github.io/Cell-line-recognition/. CONTACT: sukaew@utu.fi.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualGenes, LethalTerminology as TopicArtificial IntelligenceCell LineComputational BiologyData MiningHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMachine LearningNeoplasmsPublicationsSemantics

Identifiers

PMID26428294
PMCPMC4708107
OpenAlexW2229453122

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.