ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016
Weakly supervised learning of biomedical information extraction from curated data.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability-enhanced data cleaning in biomedical machine learning using inductive conformal prediction.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Tutorial: implementing and visualizing machine learning (ML) clinical prediction models into web-accessible calculators using Shiny R.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Weakly Supervised Learning for Categorization of Medical Inquiries for Customer Service Effectiveness.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Erratum to: Weakly supervised learning of biomedical information extraction from curated data.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum to: Weakly supervised learning of biomedical information extraction from curated data.2016 · Tumkur, Kashyap R [added]
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNumerous publicly available biomedical databases derive data by curating from literatures. The curated data can be useful as training examples for information extraction, but curated data usually lack the exact mentions and their locations in the text required for supervised machine learning. This paper describes a general approach to information extraction using curated data as training examples. The idea is to formulate the problem as cost-sensitive learning from noisy labels, where the cost is estimated by a committee of weak classifiers that consider both curated data and the text.
resultsWe test the idea on two information extraction tasks of Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). The first task is to extract target phenotypes (diseases or traits) of a study and the second is to extract ethnicity backgrounds of study subjects for different stages (initial or replication). Experimental results show that our approach can achieve 87% of Precision-at-2 (P@2) for disease/trait extraction, and 0.83 of F1-Score for stage-ethnicity extraction, both outperforming their cost-insensitive baseline counterparts.
conclusionsThe results show that curated biomedical databases can potentially be reused as training examples to train information extractors without expert annotation or refinement, opening an unprecedented opportunity of using "big data" in biomedical text mining.
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.