Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29940927›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2018

Identification of research hypotheses and new knowledge from scientific literature.

Matthew Shardlow, Riza Batista-Navarro, Paul Thompson, Raheel Nawaz, John McNaught, Sophia Ananiadou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Women's health inBMJ open · 2020
    Observational
  11. A Gated Dilated Convolution with Attention Model for Clinical Cloze-Style Reading Comprehension.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  12. Identifying main finding sentences in clinical case reports.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. A manual corpus of annotated main findings of clinical case reports.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019
    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

6 authors.

Matthew ShardlowNational Centre for Text Mining, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Riza Batista-NavarroNational Centre for Text Mining, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Paul ThompsonNational Centre for Text Mining, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Raheel NawazNational Centre for Text Mining, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
John McNaughtNational Centre for Text Mining, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sophia AnaniadouNational Centre for Text Mining, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. sophia.ananiadou@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4097-9191

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M006891/1Medical Research Council MR/N00583X/1
6 · The paper itself

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

KnowledgeResearch DesignSupport Vector MachineBiomedical ResearchData MiningHumansEventsHypothesisMeta-knowledgeNew knowledgeText mining

Identifiers

PMID29940927
PMCPMC6019216

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.