ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Extraction of a group-pair relation: problem-solving relation from web-board documents.
Article in SpringerPlus, 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.
- Grouped semantic-feature relation extraction from texts to represent medicinal-plant property knowledge on social media.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
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
This paper aims to extract a group-pair relation as a Problem-Solving relation, for example a DiseaseSymptom-Treatment relation and a CarProblem-Repair relation, between two event-explanation groups, a problem-concept group as a symptom/CarProblem-concept group and a solving-concept group as a treatment-concept/repair concept group from hospital-web-board and car-repair-guru-web-board documents. The Problem-Solving relation (particularly Symptom-Treatment relation) including the graphical representation benefits non-professional persons by supporting knowledge of primarily solving problems. The research contains three problems: how to identify an EDU (an Elementary Discourse Unit, which is a simple sentence) with the event concept of either a problem or a solution; how to determine a problem-concept EDU boundary and a solving-concept EDU boundary as two event-explanation groups, and how to determine the Problem-Solving relation between these two event-explanation groups. Therefore, we apply word co-occurrence to identify a problem-concept EDU and a solving-concept EDU, and machine-learning techniques to solve a problem-concept EDU boundary and a solving-concept EDU boundary. We propose using k-mean and Naïve Bayes to determine the Problem-Solving relation between the two event-explanation groups involved with clustering features. In contrast to previous works, the proposed approach enables group-pair relation extraction with high accuracy.
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.