Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27981203›Full record

ArticleData in brief2017

A corpus for mining drug-related knowledge from Twitter chatter: Language models and their utilities.

Abeed Sarker, Graciela Gonzalez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Data in brief, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Leveraging digital media data for pharmacovigilance.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020
    Article
  11. Deep neural networks ensemble for detecting medication mentions in tweets.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Abeed SarkerDivision of Informatics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Graciela GonzalezDivision of Informatics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.

Funding

Social Media Mining for PharmacovigilanceR01LM011176 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, GRACIELA, SHEN, LI · 2012 to 2021
$4.5M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this data article, we present to the data science, natural language processing and public heath communities an unlabeled corpus and a set of language models. We collected the data from Twitter using drug names as keywords, including their common misspelled forms. Using this data, which is rich in drug-related chatter, we developed language models to aid the development of data mining tools and methods in this domain. We generated several models that capture (i) distributed word representations and (ii) probabilities of n-gram sequences. The data set we are releasing consists of 267,215 Twitter posts made during the four-month period-November, 2014 to February, 2015. The posts mention over 250 drug-related keywords. The language models encapsulate semantic and sequential properties of the texts.

Identifiers

PMID27981203
PMCPMC5144647

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.