Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32634869›Full record

ArticleGenomics & informatics2020

Extending TextAE for annotation of non-contiguous entities.

Jake Lever, Russ Altman, Jin-Dong Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genomics & informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Jake LeverDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Russ AltmanDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Jin-Dong KimDatabase Center for Life Science, Research Organization of Information and Systems, Kashiwa 277-0871, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Named entity recognition tools are used to identify mentions of biomedical entities in free text and are essential components of high-quality information retrieval and extraction systems. Without good entity recognition, methods will mislabel searched text and will miss important information or identify spurious text that will frustrate users. Most tools do not capture non-contiguous entities which are separate spans of text that together refer to an entity, e.g., the entity "type 1 diabetes" in the phrase "type 1 and type 2 diabetes." This type is commonly found in biomedical texts, especially in lists, where multiple biomedical entities are named in shortened form to avoid repeating words. Most text annotation systems, that enable users to view and edit entity annotations, do not support non-contiguous entities. Therefore, experts cannot even visualize non-contiguous entities, let alone annotate them to build valuable datasets for machine learning methods. To combat this problem and as part of the BLAH6 hackathon, we extended the TextAE platform to allow visualization and annotation of non-contiguous entities. This enables users to add new subspans to existing entities by selecting additional text. We integrate this new functionality with TextAE's existing editing functionality to allow easy changes to entity annotation and editing of relation annotations involving non-contiguous entities, with importing and exporting to the PubAnnotation format. Finally, we roughly quantify the problem across the entire accessible biomedical literature to highlight that there are a substantial number of non-contiguous entities that appear in lists that would be missed by most text mining systems.

Indexed as

editortext annotationtext miningvisualization

Identifiers

PMID32634869
PMCPMC7362949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.