ArticleScientific reports2018
Using machine learning tools for protein database biocuration assistance.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI in biocuration: challenges, opportunities, and a roadmap for sustainable integration.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Characterization and automated classification of sentences in the biomedical literature: a case study for biocuration of gene expression and protein kinase activity.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Identifying protein subcellular localisation in scientific literature using bidirectional deep recurrent neural network.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Biocuration in the omics sciences has become paramount, as research in these fields rapidly evolves towards increasingly data-dependent models. As a result, the management of web-accessible publicly-available databases becomes a central task in biological knowledge dissemination. One relevant challenge for biocurators is the unambiguous identification of biological entities. In this study, we illustrate the adequacy of machine learning methods as biocuration assistance tools using a publicly available protein database as an example. This database contains information on G Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs), which are part of eukaryotic cell membranes and relevant in cell communication as well as major drug targets in pharmacology. These receptors are characterized according to subtype labels. Previous analysis of this database provided evidence that some of the receptor sequences could be affected by a case of label noise, as they appeared to be too consistently misclassified by machine learning methods. Here, we extend our analysis to recent and quite substantially modified new versions of the database and reveal their now extremely accurate labeling using several machine learning models and different transformations of the unaligned sequences. These findings support the adequacy of our proposed method to identify problematic labeling cases as a tool for database biocuration.
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.