ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2016
Discovering biomedical semantic relations in PubMed queries for information retrieval and database curation.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- How user intelligence is improving PubMed.Nature biotechnology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying relevant papers from the literature is a common task in biocuration. Most current biomedical literature search systems primarily rely on matching user keywords. Semantic search, on the other hand, seeks to improve search accuracy by understanding the entities and contextual relations in user keywords. However, past research has mostly focused on semantically identifying biological entities (e.g. chemicals, diseases and genes) with little effort on discovering semantic relations. In this work, we aim to discover biomedical semantic relations in PubMed queries in an automated and unsupervised fashion. Specifically, we focus on extracting and understanding the contextual information (or context patterns) that is used by PubMed users to represent semantic relations between entities such as 'CHEMICAL-1 compared to CHEMICAL-2' With the advances in automatic named entity recognition, we first tag entities in PubMed queries and then use tagged entities as knowledge to recognize pattern semantics. More specifically, we transform PubMed queries into context patterns involving participating entities, which are subsequently projected to latent topics via latent semantic analysis (LSA) to avoid the data sparseness and specificity issues. Finally, we mine semantically similar contextual patterns or semantic relations based on LSA topic distributions. Our two separate evaluation experiments of chemical-chemical (CC) and chemical-disease (CD) relations show that the proposed approach significantly outperforms a baseline method, which simply measures pattern semantics by similarity in participating entities. The highest performance achieved by our approach is nearly 0.9 and 0.85 respectively for the CC and CD task when compared against the ground truth in terms of normalized discounted cumulative gain (nDCG), a standard measure of ranking quality. These results suggest that our approach can effectively identify and return related semantic patterns in a ranked order covering diverse bio-entity relations. To assess the potential utility of our automated top-ranked patterns of a given relation in semantic search, we performed a pilot study on frequently sought semantic relations in PubMed and observed improved literature retrieval effectiveness based on post-hoc human relevance evaluation. Further investigation in larger tests and in real-world scenarios is warranted.
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.