ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2017
Using uncertainty to link and rank evidence from biomedical literature for model curation.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creating an ignorance-base: Exploring known unknowns in the scientific literature.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
- A survey on clinical natural language processing in the United Kingdom from 2007 to 2022.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Review
- Testing the reproducibility and robustness of the cancer biology literature by robot.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Article
- MedTAG: a portable and customizable annotation tool for biomedical documents.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Identifying and classifying goals for scientific knowledge.Bioinformatics advances · 2021Article
- Unsupervised inference of implicit biomedical events using context triggers.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- FLUTE: Fast and reliable knowledge retrieval from biomedical literature.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- Article
- Automated assessment of biological database assertions using the scientific literature.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Identification of research hypotheses and new knowledge from scientific literature.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Advances in Text Mining and Visualization for Precision Medicine.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationIn recent years, there has been great progress in the field of automated curation of biomedical networks and models, aided by text mining methods that provide evidence from literature. Such methods must not only extract snippets of text that relate to model interactions, but also be able to contextualize the evidence and provide additional confidence scores for the interaction in question. Although various approaches calculating confidence scores have focused primarily on the quality of the extracted information, there has been little work on exploring the textual uncertainty conveyed by the author. Despite textual uncertainty being acknowledged in biomedical text mining as an attribute of text mined interactions (events), it is significantly understudied as a means of providing a confidence measure for interactions in pathways or other biomedical models. In this work, we focus on improving identification of textual uncertainty for events and explore how it can be used as an additional measure of confidence for biomedical models.
resultsWe present a novel method for extracting uncertainty from the literature using a hybrid approach that combines rule induction and machine learning. Variations of this hybrid approach are then discussed, alongside their advantages and disadvantages. We use subjective logic theory to combine multiple uncertainty values extracted from different sources for the same interaction. Our approach achieves F-scores of 0.76 and 0.88 based on the BioNLP-ST and Genia-MK corpora, respectively, making considerable improvements over previously published work. Moreover, we evaluate our proposed system on pathways related to two different areas, namely leukemia and melanoma cancer research. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The leukemia pathway model used is available in Pathway Studio while the Ras model is available via PathwayCommons. Online demonstration of the uncertainty extraction system is available for research purposes at http://argo.nactem.ac.uk/test. The related code is available on https://github.com/c-zrv/uncertainty_components.git. Details on the above are available in the Supplementary Material. CONTACT: sophia.ananiadou@manchester.ac.uk. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.