Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31545655›Full record

SynthesisJCO clinical cancer informatics2019

Using Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing to Review and Classify the Medical Literature on Cancer Susceptibility Genes.

Yujia Bao, Zhengyi Deng, Yan Wang, Heeyoon Kim, Victor Diego Armengol, Francisco Acevedo, Nofal Ouardaoui, Cathy Wang, Giovanni Parmigiani, Regina Barzilay and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Disease spectrum of gastric cancer susceptibility genes.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2021
    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

12 authors.

Yujia BaoMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA.
Zhengyi DengMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Yan WangMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Heeyoon KimMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA.
Victor Diego ArmengolMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Francisco AcevedoMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Nofal OuardaouiHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Cathy WangHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Giovanni ParmigianiHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Regina BarzilayMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA.
Danielle BraunHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Kevin S HughesMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Funding

VectorP30CA006516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI Irene M. Ghobrial · 1985 to 2026
$330.6M
Training Grant in Quantitative Sciences for Cancer ResearchT32CA009337 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI QUACKENBUSH, JOHN, TRIPPA, LORENZO · 1986 to 2025
$12.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006516NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009337
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe medical literature relevant to germline genetics is growing exponentially. Clinicians need tools that help to monitor and prioritize the literature to understand the clinical implications of pathogenic genetic variants. We developed and evaluated two machine learning models to classify abstracts as relevant to the penetrance-risk of cancer for germline mutation carriers-or prevalence of germline genetic mutations. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted literature searches in PubMed and retrieved paper titles and abstracts to create an annotated data set for training and evaluating the two machine learning classification models. Our first model is a support vector machine (SVM) which learns a linear decision rule on the basis of the bag-of-ngrams representation of each title and abstract. Our second model is a convolutional neural network (CNN) which learns a complex nonlinear decision rule on the basis of the raw title and abstract. We evaluated the performance of the two models on the classification of papers as relevant to penetrance or prevalence.

resultsFor penetrance classification, we annotated 3,740 paper titles and abstracts and evaluated the two models using 10-fold cross-validation. The SVM model achieved 88.93% accuracy-percentage of papers that were correctly classified-whereas the CNN model achieved 88.53% accuracy. For prevalence classification, we annotated 3,753 paper titles and abstracts. The SVM model achieved 88.92% accuracy and the CNN model achieved 88.52% accuracy.

conclusionOur models achieve high accuracy in classifying abstracts as relevant to penetrance or prevalence. By facilitating literature review, this tool could help clinicians and researchers keep abreast of the burgeoning knowledge of gene-cancer associations and keep the knowledge bases for clinical decision support tools up to date.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseKnowledge DiscoveryMachine LearningMedicine in LiteratureNatural Language ProcessingOncogenesHumansNeoplasmsPolymorphism, GeneticPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSupport Vector Machine

Identifiers

PMID31545655
PMCPMC6873946

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.