ArticleBiodiversity data journal2018
Resolving "orphaned" non-specific structures using machine learning and natural language processing methods.
Article in Biodiversity data journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scholarly publications of biodiversity literature contain a vast amount of information in human readable format. The detailed morphological descriptions in these publications contain rich information that can be extracted to facilitate analysis and computational biology research. However, the idiosyncrasies of morphological descriptions still pose a number of challenges to machines. In this work, we demonstrate the use of two different approaches to resolve meronym (i.e. part-of) relations between anatomical parts and their anchor organs, including a syntactic rule-based approach and a SVM-based (support vector machine) method. Both methods made use of domain ontologies. We compared the two approaches with two other baseline methods and the evaluation results show the syntactic methods (92.1% F1 score) outperformed the SVM methods (80.7% F1 score) and the part-of ontologies were valuable knowledge sources for the task. It is notable that the mistakes made by the two approaches rarely overlapped. Additional tests will be conducted on the development version of the Explorer of Taxon Concepts toolkit before we make the functionality publicly available. Meanwhile, we will further investigate and leverage the complementary nature of the two approaches to further drive down the error rate, as in practical application, even a 1% error rate could lead to hundreds of errors.
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.