Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28269949›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2016

Improving Endpoint Detection to Support Automated Systematic Reviews.

Ana Lucic, Catherine L Blake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

Ana LucicSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.
Catherine L BlakeSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Authors of biomedical articles use comparison sentences to communicate the findings of a study, and to compare the results of the current study with earlier studies. The Claim Framework defines a comparison claim as a sentence that includes at least two entities that are being compared, and an endpoint that captures the way in which the entities are compared. Although automated methods have been developed to identify comparison sentences from the text, identifying the role that a specific noun plays (i.e. entity or endpoint) is much more difficult. Automated methods have been successful at identifying the second entity, but classification models were unable to clearly differentiate between the first entity and the endpoint. We show empirically that establishing if head noun is an amount or measure provides a statistically significant improvement that increases the endpoint precision from 0.42 to 0.56 on longer and from 0.51 to 0.58 on shorter sentences and recall from 0.64 to 0.71 on longer and from 0.69 to 0.74 on shorter sentences. The differences were not statistically significant for the second compared entity.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicSupport Vector MachineAnimalsBiomedical ResearchDiabetes MellitusHumansLinguisticsNatural Language ProcessingPublicationsReview Literature as Topic

Identifiers

PMID28269949
PMCPMC5333237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.