ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2018
Accelerating annotation of articles via automated approaches: evaluation of the neXtA5 curation-support tool by neXtProt.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- New approaches in developing medicinal herbs databases.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023Review
- COVoc and COVTriage: novel resources to support literature triage.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Identifying Opportunities for Workflow Automation in Health Care: Lessons Learned from Other Industries.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Review
- The Minimum Information about a Molecular Interaction CAusal STatement (MI2CAST).Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- SIB Literature Services: RESTful customizable search engines in biomedical literature, enriched with automatically mapped biomedical concepts.Nucleic acids research · 2020Article
- An intrinsically disordered proteins community for ELIXIR.F1000Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of efficient text-mining tools promises to boost the curation workflow by significantly reducing the time needed to process the literature into biological databases. We have developed a curation support tool, neXtA5, that provides a search engine coupled with an annotation system directly integrated into a biocuration workflow. neXtA5 assists curation with modules optimized for the thevarious curation tasks: document triage, entity recognition and information extraction.Here, we describe the evaluation of neXtA5 by expert curators. We first assessed the annotations of two independent curators to provide a baseline for comparison. To evaluate the performance of neXtA5, we submitted requests and compared the neXtA5 results with the manual curation. The analysis focuses on the usability of neXtA5 to support the curation of two types of data: biological processes (BPs) and diseases (Ds). We evaluated the relevance of the papers proposed as well as the recall and precision of the suggested annotations.The evaluation of document triage by neXtA5 precision showed that both curators agree with neXtA5 for 67 (BP) and 63% (D) of abstracts, while curators agree on accepting or rejecting an abstract ~80% of the time. Hence, the precision of the triage system is satisfactory.For concept extraction, curators approved 35 (BP) and 25% (D) of the neXtA5 annotations. Conversely, neXtA5 successfully annotated up to 36 (BP) and 68% (D) of the terms identified by curators. The user feedback obtained in these tests highlighted the need for improvement in the ranking function of neXtA5 annotations. Therefore, we transformed the information extraction component into an annotation ranking system. This improvement results in a top precision (precision at first rank) of 59 (D) and 63% (BP). These results suggest that when considering only the first extracted entity, the current system achieves a precision comparable with expert biocurators.
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.