ArticlePloS one2016
Author Disambiguation in PubMed: Evidence on the Precision and Recall of Author-ity among NIH-Funded Scientists.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the gap in author names: building an enhanced author name dataset for biomedical literature system.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- TrendyGenes, a computational pipeline for the detection of literature trends in academia and drug discovery.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Ethnicity-based name partitioning for author name disambiguation using supervised machine learning.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2021Article
- ReCiter: An open source, identity-driven, authorship prediction algorithm optimized for academic institutions.PloS one · 2021Article
- Building a PubMed knowledge graph.Scientific data · 2020Article
- Understanding Drug Repurposing From the Perspective of Biomedical Entities and Their Evolution: Bibliographic Research Using Aspirin.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- A new approach and gold standard toward author disambiguation in MEDLINE.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- How to organize science and technology information in Latin America?Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia) · 2016Article
- The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.PloS one · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the usefulness (precision) and completeness (recall) of the Author-ity author disambiguation for PubMed articles by associating articles with scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In doing so, we exploited established unique identifiers-Principal Investigator (PI) IDs-that the NIH assigns to funded scientists. Analyzing a set of 36,987 NIH scientists who received their first R01 grant between 1985 and 2009, we identified 355,921 articles appearing in PubMed that would allow us to evaluate the precision and recall of the Author-ity disambiguation. We found that Author-ity identified the NIH scientists with 99.51% precision across the articles. It had a corresponding recall of 99.64%. Precision and recall, moreover, appeared stable across common and uncommon last names, across ethnic backgrounds, and across levels of scientist productivity.
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.