ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2017
Mining the literature for genes associated with placenta-mediated maternal diseases.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Automated literature analysis could significantly speed up understanding of the role of the placenta and the impact of its development and functions on the health of the mother and the child. To facilitate automatic extraction of information about placenta-mediated disorders from the literature, we manually annotated genes and proteins, the associated diseases, and the functions and processes involved in the development and function of placenta in a collection of PubMed/MEDLINE abstracts. We developed three baseline approaches to finding sentences containing this information: one based on supervised machine learning (ML) and two based on distant supervision: 1) using automated detection of named entities and 2) using MeSH. We compare the performance of several well-known supervised ML algorithms and identify two approaches, Support Vector Machines (SVM) and Generalized Linear Models (GLM), which yield up to 98% recall precision and F1 score. We demonstrate that distant supervision approaches could be used at the expense of missing up to 15% of relevant documents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29854219PMC5977710W2786575616What 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.