ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2020
Text mining meets community curation: a newly designed curation platform to improve author experience and participation at WormBase.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- dictyBase 2026: a reimplementation of theResearch square · 2026Article
- Recent major changes to TAIR: updates to the database, website, and Arabidopsis genome.Genetics · 2026Article
- Gramene 2025: expanded comparative genomics and pathway resources, integrated search, and pan-genome portals for crop research.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Working in biocuration: contemporary experiences and perspectives.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- The Arabidopsis Information Resource in 2024.Genetics · 2024Article
- Article
- ESPERANTO: a GLP-field sEmi-SuPERvised toxicogenomics metadAta curatioN TOol.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- A roadmap for the functional annotation of protein families: a community perspective.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- A crowdsourcing open platform for literature curation in UniProt.PLoS biology · 2021Article
- UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- A Network Biology Approach to Understanding the Tissue-Specific Roles of Non-Coding RNAs in Arthritis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Review
- A hybrid approach toward biomedical relation extraction training corpora: combining distant supervision with crowdsourcing.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- A behind-the-scenes tour of the IEDB curation process: an optimized process empirically integrating automation and human curation efforts.Immunology · 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.
Funding
Abstract
Biological knowledgebases rely on expert biocuration of the research literature to maintain up-to-date collections of data organized in machine-readable form. To enter information into knowledgebases, curators need to follow three steps: (i) identify papers containing relevant data, a process called triaging; (ii) recognize named entities; and (iii) extract and curate data in accordance with the underlying data models. WormBase (WB), the authoritative repository for research data on Caenorhabditis elegans and other nematodes, uses text mining (TM) to semi-automate its curation pipeline. In addition, WB engages its community, via an Author First Pass (AFP) system, to help recognize entities and classify data types in their recently published papers. In this paper, we present a new WB AFP system that combines TM and AFP into a single application to enhance community curation. The system employs string-searching algorithms and statistical methods (e.g. support vector machines (SVMs)) to extract biological entities and classify data types, and it presents the results to authors in a web form where they validate the extracted information, rather than enter it de novo as the previous form required. With this new system, we lessen the burden for authors, while at the same time receive valuable feedback on the performance of our TM tools. The new user interface also links out to specific structured data submission forms, e.g. for phenotype or expression pattern data, giving the authors the opportunity to contribute a more detailed curation that can be incorporated into WB with minimal curator review. Our approach is generalizable and could be applied to additional knowledgebases that would like to engage their user community in assisting with the curation. In the five months succeeding the launch of the new system, the response rate has been comparable with that of the previous AFP version, but the quality and quantity of the data received has greatly improved.
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.