ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2018
Identification of research hypotheses and new knowledge from scientific literature.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- SATS: simplification aware text summarization of scientific documents.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- 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
- Contexts and contradictions: a roadmap for computational drug repurposing with knowledge inference.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Review
- Multi-class sentiment analysis of urdu text using multilingual BERT.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Automatic consistency assurance for literature-based gene ontology annotation.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Article
- Identifying and classifying goals for scientific knowledge.Bioinformatics advances · 2021Article
- Women's health inBMJ open · 2020Observational
- A Gated Dilated Convolution with Attention Model for Clinical Cloze-Style Reading Comprehension.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Identifying main finding sentences in clinical case reports.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- Screening PubMed abstracts: is class imbalance always a challenge to machine learning?Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- A manual corpus of annotated main findings of clinical case reports.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundText mining (TM) methods have been used extensively to extract relations and events from the literature. In addition, TM techniques have been used to extract various types or dimensions of interpretative information, known as Meta-Knowledge (MK), from the context of relations and events, e.g. negation, speculation, certainty and knowledge type. However, most existing methods have focussed on the extraction of individual dimensions of MK, without investigating how they can be combined to obtain even richer contextual information. In this paper, we describe a novel, supervised method to extract new MK dimensions that encode Research Hypotheses (an author's intended knowledge gain) and New Knowledge (an author's findings). The method incorporates various features, including a combination of simple MK dimensions.
methodsWe identify previously explored dimensions and then use a random forest to combine these with linguistic features into a classification model. To facilitate evaluation of the model, we have enriched two existing corpora annotated with relations and events, i.e., a subset of the GENIA-MK corpus and the EU-ADR corpus, by adding attributes to encode whether each relation or event corresponds to Research Hypothesis or New Knowledge. In the GENIA-MK corpus, these new attributes complement simpler MK dimensions that had previously been annotated.
resultsWe show that our approach is able to assign different types of MK dimensions to relations and events with a high degree of accuracy. Firstly, our method is able to improve upon the previously reported state of the art performance for an existing dimension, i.e., Knowledge Type. Secondly, we also demonstrate high F1-score in predicting the new dimensions of Research Hypothesis (GENIA: 0.914, EU-ADR 0.802) and New Knowledge (GENIA: 0.829, EU-ADR 0.836).
conclusionWe have presented a novel approach for predicting New Knowledge and Research Hypothesis, which combines simple MK dimensions to achieve high F1-scores. The extraction of such information is valuable for a number of practical TM applications.
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.