ArticleCitizen science : theory and practice2016
Citizen Science for Mining the Biomedical Literature.
Article in Citizen science : theory and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social Justice, Science Agency, and Collaborations: Using Participatory Science to Enhance Learning Outcomes in Postsecondary STEM Courses.CBE life sciences education · 2026Article
- Machine learning in healthcare citizen science: A scoping review.International journal of medical informatics · 2025Article
- Outbreak.info Research Library: a standardized, searchable platform to discover and explore COVID-19 resources.Nature methods · 2023Article
- Outbreak.info Research Library: A standardized, searchable platform to discover and explore COVID-19 resources.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2022Article
- Humans and machines in biomedical knowledge curation: hypertrophic cardiomyopathy molecular mechanisms' representation.BioData mining · 2021Article
- Research data management in health and biomedical citizen science: practices and prospects.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Applying citizen science to gene, drug and disease relationship extraction from biomedical abstracts.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Scientific Discovery Games for Biomedical Research.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2019Article
- Aligning Needs: Integrating Citizen Science Efforts into Schools Through Service Requirements.Human computation (Fairfax, Va.) · 2019Article
- Crowdsourcing image analysis for plant phenomics to generate ground truth data for machine learning.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- An annotated corpus with nanomedicine and pharmacokinetic parameters.International journal of nanomedicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biomedical literature represents one of the largest and fastest growing collections of unstructured biomedical knowledge. Finding critical information buried in the literature can be challenging. To extract information from free-flowing text, researchers need to: 1. identify the entities in the text (named entity recognition), 2. apply a standardized vocabulary to these entities (normalization), and 3. identify how entities in the text are related to one another (relationship extraction). Researchers have primarily approached these information extraction tasks through manual expert curation and computational methods. We have previously demonstrated that named entity recognition (NER) tasks can be crowdsourced to a group of non-experts via the paid microtask platform, Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), and can dramatically reduce the cost and increase the throughput of biocuration efforts. However, given the size of the biomedical literature, even information extraction via paid microtask platforms is not scalable. With our web-based application Mark2Cure (http://mark2cure.org), we demonstrate that NER tasks also can be performed by volunteer citizen scientists with high accuracy. We apply metrics from the Zooniverse Matrices of Citizen Science Success and provide the results here to serve as a basis of comparison for other citizen science projects. Further, we discuss design considerations, issues, and the application of analytics for successfully moving a crowdsourcing workflow from a paid microtask platform to a citizen science platform. To our knowledge, this study is the first application of citizen science to a natural language processing task.
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.