ArticleNeuroinformatics2019
Automated Metadata Suggestion During Repository Submission.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automating literature screening and curation with applications to computational neuroscience.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- A pipeline for the retrieval and extraction of domain-specific information with application to COVID-19 immune signatures.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Workshop Report: Catalyzing Knowledge-Driven Discovery in Environmental Health Sciences through a Harmonized Language.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Assisted neuroscience knowledge extraction via machine learning applied to neural reconstruction metadata on NeuroMorpho.Org.Brain informatics · 2022Article
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.
Funding
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
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.