ArticleGenomics & informatics2020
Improving accessibility and distinction between negative results in biomedical relation extraction.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A hybrid approach toward biomedical relation extraction training corpora: combining distant supervision with crowdsourcing.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accessible negative results are relevant for researchers and clinicians not only to limit their search space but also to prevent the costly re-exploration of research hypotheses. However, most biomedical relation extraction datasets do not seek to distinguish between a false and a negative relation among two biomedical entities. Furthermore, datasets created using distant supervision techniques also have some false negative relations that constitute undocumented/unknown relations (missing from a knowledge base). We propose to improve the distinction between these concepts, by revising a subset of the relations marked as false on the phenotype-gene relations corpus and give the first steps to automatically distinguish between the false (F), negative (N), and unknown (U) results. Our work resulted in a sample of 127 manually annotated FNU relations and a weighted-F1 of 0.5609 for their automatic distinction. This work was developed during the 6th Biomedical Linked Annotation Hackathon (BLAH6).
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.