Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31504205›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020

Applying citizen science to gene, drug and disease relationship extraction from biomedical abstracts.

Ginger Tsueng, Max Nanis, Jennifer T Fouquier, Michael Mayers, Benjamin M Good, Andrew I Su

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Machine learning in healthcare citizen science: A scoping review.International journal of medical informatics · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Building a pipeline to solicit expert knowledge from the community to aid gene summary curation.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ginger TsuengDepartment of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Max NanisDepartment of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Jennifer T FouquierDepartment of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Michael MayersDepartment of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Benjamin M GoodDepartment of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Andrew I SuDepartment of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Scripps Research Institute · US

Funding

SCRIPPS TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTE (UL1)UL1RR025774 · NCRR · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI TOPOL, ERIC JEFFREY · 2008 to 2011
$16.3M
TRAININGU54GM114833 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LINDSEY, MERRY L., PING, PEIPEI · 2014 to 2017
$13.8M
The Gene Wiki: Community intelligence applied to gene annotationR01GM089820 · NIGMS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI SU, ANDREW I · 2010 to 2021
$5.2M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025774NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM089820NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM114833
6 · The paper itself

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

Citizen ScienceNatural Language ProcessingInformation Storage and RetrievalResearch DesignSoftware

Identifiers

PMID31504205
PMCPMC8104067
OpenAlexW2972130606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.