ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020
Applying citizen science to gene, drug and disease relationship extraction from biomedical abstracts.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- 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
- A hybrid approach toward biomedical relation extraction training corpora: combining distant supervision with crowdsourcing.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- Building a pipeline to solicit expert knowledge from the community to aid gene summary curation.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
motivationBiomedical literature is growing at a rate that outpaces our ability to harness the knowledge contained therein. To mine valuable inferences from the large volume of literature, many researchers use information extraction algorithms to harvest information in biomedical texts. Information extraction is usually accomplished via a combination of manual expert curation and computational methods. Advances in computational methods usually depend on the time-consuming generation of gold standards by a limited number of expert curators. Citizen science is public participation in scientific research. We previously found that citizen scientists are willing and capable of performing named entity recognition of disease mentions in biomedical abstracts, but did not know if this was true with relationship extraction (RE).
resultsIn this article, we introduce the Relationship Extraction Module of the web-based application Mark2Cure (M2C) and demonstrate that citizen scientists can perform RE. We confirm the importance of accurate named entity recognition on user performance of RE and identify design issues that impacted data quality. We find that the data generated by citizen scientists can be used to identify relationship types not currently available in the M2C Relationship Extraction Module. We compare the citizen science-generated data with algorithm-mined data and identify ways in which the two approaches may complement one another. We also discuss opportunities for future improvement of this system, as well as the potential synergies between citizen science, manual biocuration and natural language processing. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Mark2Cure platform: https://mark2cure.org; Mark2Cure source code: https://github.com/sulab/mark2cure; and data and analysis code for this article: https://github.com/gtsueng/M2C_rel_nb. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.