Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27087308›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2016

A crowdsourcing workflow for extracting chemical-induced disease relations from free text.

Tong Shu Li, Àlex Bravo, Laura I Furlong, Benjamin M Good, Andrew I Su

Abstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Crowdsourcing and curation: perspectives from biology and natural language processing.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2016
    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

5 authors.

Tong Shu LiDepartment of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, the Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Àlex BravoResearch Programme on Biomedical Informatics (GRIB), IMIM, UPF, Barcelona, Spain.
Laura I FurlongResearch Programme on Biomedical Informatics (GRIB), IMIM, UPF, Barcelona, Spain.
Benjamin M GoodDepartment of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, the Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Andrew I SuDepartment of Molecular and Experimental Medicine, the Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA asu@scripps.edu.

Funding

Scripps Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001114 · NCATS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI TOPOL, ERIC JEFFREY · 2013 to 2017
$24.0M
TRAININGU54GM114833 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LINDSEY, MERRY L., PING, PEIPEI · 2014 to 2017
$13.8M
The Gene Wiki: Community intelligence applied to gene annotationR01GM089820 · NIGMS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI SU, ANDREW I · 2010 to 2021
$5.2M
NCATS NIH HHS TR001114NIGMS NIH HHS GM089820NIGMS NIH HHS GM114833
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Relations between chemicals and diseases are one of the most queried biomedical interactions. Although expert manual curation is the standard method for extracting these relations from the literature, it is expensive and impractical to apply to large numbers of documents, and therefore alternative methods are required. We describe here a crowdsourcing workflow for extracting chemical-induced disease relations from free text as part of the BioCreative V Chemical Disease Relation challenge. Five non-expert workers on the CrowdFlower platform were shown each potential chemical-induced disease relation highlighted in the original source text and asked to make binary judgments about whether the text supported the relation. Worker responses were aggregated through voting, and relations receiving four or more votes were predicted as true. On the official evaluation dataset of 500 PubMed abstracts, the crowd attained a 0.505F-score (0.475 precision, 0.540 recall), with a maximum theoretical recall of 0.751 due to errors with named entity recognition. The total crowdsourcing cost was $1290.67 ($2.58 per abstract) and took a total of 7 h. A qualitative error analysis revealed that 46.66% of sampled errors were due to task limitations and gold standard errors, indicating that performance can still be improved. All code and results are publicly available athttps://github.com/SuLab/crowd_cid_relexDatabase URL:https://github.com/SuLab/crowd_cid_relex.

Indexed as

CrowdsourcingDatabases, FactualData CurationData MiningDiseaseHazardous SubstancesHumansWorkflowHazardous Substances

Identifiers

PMID27087308
PMCPMC4834205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.