Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26994911›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2016

Assessing the state of the art in biomedical relation extraction: overview of the BioCreative V chemical-disease relation (CDR) task.

Chih-Hsuan Wei, Yifan Peng, Robert Leaman, Allan Peter Davis, Carolyn J Mattingly, Jiao Li, Thomas C Wiegers, Zhiyong Lu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed
14.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 204 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Large language models for bioinformatics.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026
    Review
  3. The Role of N-ary Relations in Representing Biomedical Complexity.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The overview of the BioRED (Biomedical Relation Extraction Dataset) track at BioCreative VIII.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Transformers and large language models in healthcare: A review.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2024
    Review
  17. Towards discovery: an end-to-end system for uncovering novel biomedical relations.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Chih-Hsuan WeiNational Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
Yifan PengNational Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Robert LeamanNational Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
Allan Peter DavisDepartment of Biological Sciences and the Center for Human Health and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA and.
Carolyn J MattinglyDepartment of Biological Sciences and the Center for Human Health and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA and.
Jiao LiInstitute of Medical Information, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China.
Thomas C WiegersDepartment of Biological Sciences and the Center for Human Health and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA and.
Zhiyong LuNational Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA zhiyong.lu@nih.gov.
National Center for Biotechnology Information · USNorth Carolina State University · USChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNUniversity of Delaware · US

Funding

Named Entity Recognition and Relationship Extraction in BiomedicineZIALM091813 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LU, ZHIYONG · 2013 to 2022
$13.4M
The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD)R01ES014065 · NIEHS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI DAVIS, ALLAN PETER, MATTINGLY, CAROLYN J. · 2006 to 2021
$10.5M
Generation of a centralized and integrated resource for exposure dataR01ES019604 · NIEHS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI MATTINGLY, CAROLYN J. · 2011 to 2015
$1.3M
Intramural NIH HHSNIEHS NIH HHS ES014065NIEHS NIH HHS ES019604NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES014065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Manually curating chemicals, diseases and their relationships is significantly important to biomedical research, but it is plagued by its high cost and the rapid growth of the biomedical literature. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in developing computational approaches for automatic chemical-disease relation (CDR) extraction. Despite these attempts, the lack of a comprehensive benchmarking dataset has limited the comparison of different techniques in order to assess and advance the current state-of-the-art. To this end, we organized a challenge task through BioCreative V to automatically extract CDRs from the literature. We designed two challenge tasks: disease named entity recognition (DNER) and chemical-induced disease (CID) relation extraction. To assist system development and assessment, we created a large annotated text corpus that consisted of human annotations of chemicals, diseases and their interactions from 1500 PubMed articles. 34 teams worldwide participated in the CDR task: 16 (DNER) and 18 (CID). The best systems achieved an F-score of 86.46% for the DNER task--a result that approaches the human inter-annotator agreement (0.8875)--and an F-score of 57.03% for the CID task, the highest results ever reported for such tasks. When combining team results via machine learning, the ensemble system was able to further improve over the best team results by achieving 88.89% and 62.80% in F-score for the DNER and CID task, respectively. Additionally, another novel aspect of our evaluation is to test each participating system's ability to return real-time results: the average response time for each team's DNER and CID web service systems were 5.6 and 9.3 s, respectively. Most teams used hybrid systems for their submissions based on machining learning. Given the level of participation and results, we found our task to be successful in engaging the text-mining research community, producing a large annotated corpus and improving the results of automatic disease recognition and CDR extraction. Database URL: http://www.biocreative.org/tasks/biocreative-v/track-3-cdr/.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDatabases, FactualDiseaseData MiningHumansStatistics as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26994911
PMCPMC4799720
OpenAlexW2335791510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.