Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29220478›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2017

A semantic-based workflow for biomedical literature annotation.

Pedro Sernadela, José Luís Oliveira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Pedro SernadelaUniversity of Aveiro, DETI/IEETA, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
José Luís OliveiraUniversity of Aveiro, DETI/IEETA, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational annotation of textual information has taken on an important role in knowledge extraction from the biomedical literature, since most of the relevant information from scientific findings is still maintained in text format. In this endeavour, annotation tools can assist in the identification of biomedical concepts and their relationships, providing faster reading and curation processes, with reduced costs. However, the separate usage of distinct annotation systems results in highly heterogeneous data, as it is difficult to efficiently combine and exchange this valuable asset. Moreover, despite the existence of several annotation formats, there is no unified way to integrate miscellaneous annotation outcomes into a reusable, sharable and searchable structure. Taking up this challenge, we present a modular architecture for textual information integration using semantic web features and services. The solution described allows the migration of curation data into a common model, providing a suitable transition process in which multiple annotation data can be integrated and enriched, with the possibility of being shared, compared and reused across semantic knowledge bases.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicData CurationSemantic WebData Mining

Identifiers

PMID29220478
PMCPMC5691355

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.