Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30382537›Full record

ArticleNeuroinformatics2019

Automated Metadata Suggestion During Repository Submission.

Robert A McDougal, Isha Dalal, Thomas M Morse, Gordon M Shepherd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Automating literature screening and curation with applications to computational neuroscience.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Robert A McDougalDepartment of Neuroscience, Yale University, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208001, New Haven, CT, 06520-8001, USA. robert.mcdougal@yale.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6394-3127
Isha DalalYale College, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA.
Thomas M MorseDepartment of Neuroscience, Yale University, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208001, New Haven, CT, 06520-8001, USA.
Gordon M ShepherdDepartment of Neuroscience, Yale University, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208001, New Haven, CT, 06520-8001, USA.

Funding

SenseLab: Integration of Multidisciplinary Sensory DataR01DC009977 · NIDCD · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI HINES, MICHAEL L, MCDOUGAL, ROBERT A. · 2009 to 2018
$6.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC009977
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowledge discovery via an informatics resource is constrained by the completeness of the resource, both in terms of the amount of data it contains and in terms of the metadata that exists to describe the data. Increasing completeness in one of these categories risks reducing completeness in the other because manually curating metadata is time consuming and is restricted by familiarity with both the data and the metadata annotation scheme. The diverse interests of a research community may drive a resource to have hundreds of metadata tags with few examples for each making it challenging for humans or machine learning algorithms to learn how to assign metadata tags properly. We demonstrate with ModelDB, a computational neuroscience model discovery resource, that using manually-curated regular-expression based rules can overcome this challenge by parsing existing texts from data providers during user data entry to suggest metadata annotations and prompt them to suggest other related metadata annotations rather than leaving the task to a curator. In the ModelDB implementation, analyzing the abstract identified 6.4 metadata tags per abstract at 79% precision. Using the full-text produced higher recall with low precision (41%), and the title alone produced few (1.3) metadata annotations per entry; we thus recommend data providers use their abstract during upload. Grouping the possible metadata annotations into categories (e.g. cell type, biological topic) revealed that precision and recall for the different text sources varies by category. Given this proof-of-concept, other bioinformatics resources can likewise improve the quality of their metadata by adopting our approach of prompting data uploaders with relevant metadata at the minimal cost of formalizing rules for each potential metadata annotation.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisMachine LearningMetadataAnimalsComputational BiologyHumansData sharingMetadataNatural language processingRepository

Identifiers

PMID30382537
PMCPMC6494730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.