Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27044929›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2016

PDF text classification to leverage information extraction from publication reports.

Duy Duc An Bui, Guilherme Del Fiol, Siddhartha Jonnalagadda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 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
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Duy Duc An BuiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Preventive Medicine-Health and Biomedical Informatics, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: duy.bui@utah.edu.
Guilherme Del FiolDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Siddhartha JonnalagaddaDepartment of Preventive Medicine-Health and Biomedical Informatics, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

Meeting Clinicians' Information Needs with Highly Tailored Knowledge SummariesR01LM011416 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DEL FIOL, GUILHERME · 2013 to 2016
$1.3M
Improving the Efficiency and Efficacy in Authoring Essential Clinical FAQsR00LM011389 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI JONNALAGADDA, SIDDHARTHA REDDY · 2013 to 2015
$665k
NLM NIH HHS R00 LM011389NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesData extraction from original study reports is a time-consuming, error-prone process in systematic review development. Information extraction (IE) systems have the potential to assist humans in the extraction task, however majority of IE systems were not designed to work on Portable Document Format (PDF) document, an important and common extraction source for systematic review. In a PDF document, narrative content is often mixed with publication metadata or semi-structured text, which add challenges to the underlining natural language processing algorithm. Our goal is to categorize PDF texts for strategic use by IE systems.

methodsWe used an open-source tool to extract raw texts from a PDF document and developed a text classification algorithm that follows a multi-pass sieve framework to automatically classify PDF text snippets (for brevity, texts) into TITLE, ABSTRACT, BODYTEXT, SEMISTRUCTURE, and METADATA categories. To validate the algorithm, we developed a gold standard of PDF reports that were included in the development of previous systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration. In a two-step procedure, we evaluated (1) classification performance, and compared it with machine learning classifier, and (2) the effects of the algorithm on an IE system that extracts clinical outcome mentions.

resultsThe multi-pass sieve algorithm achieved an accuracy of 92.6%, which was 9.7% (p<0.001) higher than the best performing machine learning classifier that used a logistic regression algorithm. F-measure improvements were observed in the classification of TITLE (+15.6%), ABSTRACT (+54.2%), BODYTEXT (+3.7%), SEMISTRUCTURE (+34%), and MEDADATA (+14.2%). In addition, use of the algorithm to filter semi-structured texts and publication metadata improved performance of the outcome extraction system (F-measure +4.1%, p=0.002). It also reduced of number of sentences to be processed by 44.9% (p<0.001), which corresponds to a processing time reduction of 50% (p=0.005).

conclusionsThe rule-based multi-pass sieve framework can be used effectively in categorizing texts extracted from PDF documents. Text classification is an important prerequisite step to leverage information extraction from PDF documents.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsInformation Storage and RetrievalMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingReview Literature as TopicHumansNarrationPublicationsDocument analysisMachine learningNatural language processingText classification

Identifiers

PMID27044929
PMCPMC4893911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.