ArticlePloS one2020
Neural networks for open and closed Literature-based Discovery.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying Evidence for Competing Biomedical Hypotheses using Large Language Models and Bayesian Analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Enriched knowledge representation in biological fields: a case study of literature-based discovery in Alzheimer's disease.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2025Article
- Predicting implicit concept embeddings for singular relationship discovery replication of closed literature-based discovery.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Mining impactful discoveries from the biomedical literature.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Literature-based discovery: addressing the issue of the subpar evaluation methodology.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- A survey on clinical natural language processing in the United Kingdom from 2007 to 2022.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Review
- Optimizations for Computing Relatedness in Biomedical Heterogeneous Information Networks: SemNet 2.0.Big data and cognitive computing · 2022Article
- Combining Literature Mining and Machine Learning for Predicting Biomedical Discoveries.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Computational methods directed towards drug repurposing for COVID-19: advantages and limitations.RSC advances · 2021Review
- Prioritizing cancer hazard assessments for IARC Monographs using an integrated approach of database fusion and text mining.Environment international · 2021Article
- COVID19 Drug Repository: text-mining the literature in search of putative COVID19 therapeutics.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- PubMed-Scale Chemical Concept Embeddings Reconstruct Physical Protein Interaction Networks.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Literature-based Discovery (LBD) aims to discover new knowledge automatically from large collections of literature. Scientific literature is growing at an exponential rate, making it difficult for researchers to stay current in their discipline and easy to miss knowledge necessary to advance their research. LBD can facilitate hypothesis testing and generation and thus accelerate scientific progress. Neural networks have demonstrated improved performance on LBD-related tasks but are yet to be applied to it. We propose four graph-based, neural network methods to perform open and closed LBD. We compared our methods with those used by the state-of-the-art LION LBD system on the same evaluations to replicate recently published findings in cancer biology. We also applied them to a time-sliced dataset of human-curated peer-reviewed biological interactions. These evaluations and the metrics they employ represent performance on real-world knowledge advances and are thus robust indicators of approach efficacy. In the first experiments, our best methods performed 2-4 times better than the baselines in closed discovery and 2-3 times better in open discovery. In the second, our best methods performed almost 2 times better than the baselines in open discovery. These results are strong indications that neural LBD is potentially a very effective approach for generating new scientific discoveries from existing literature. The code for our models and other information can be found at: https://github.com/cambridgeltl/nn_for_LBD.
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.