ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2016
PDF text classification to leverage information extraction from publication reports.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Methods for Systematic Reviews:: A Rapid Scoping Review.Delaware journal of public health · 2023Article
- A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Review
- Novel methodology to measure pre-procedure antimicrobial prophylaxis: integrating text searches with structured data from the Veterans Health Administration's electronic medical record.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Automated, Efficient, and Accelerated Knowledge Modeling of the Cognitive Neuroimaging Literature Using the ATHENA Toolkit.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Using Electronic Health Records To Generate Phenotypes For Research.Current protocols in human genetics · 2019Article
- The UAB Informatics Institute and 2016 CEGS N-GRID de-identification shared task challenge.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2017Article
- Extractive text summarization system to aid data extraction from full text in systematic review development.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.