ArticlePloS one2021
Extracting and modeling geographic information from scientific articles.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific articles often contain relevant geographic information such as where field work was performed or where patients were treated. Most often, this information appears in the full-text article contents as a description in natural language including place names, with no accompanying machine-readable geographic metadata. Automatically extracting this geographic information could help conduct meta-analyses, find geographical research gaps, and retrieve articles using spatial search criteria. Research on this problem is still in its infancy, with many works manually processing corpora for locations and few cross-domain studies. In this paper, we develop a fully automatic pipeline to extract and represent relevant locations from scientific articles, applying it to two varied corpora. We obtain good performance, with full pipeline precision of 0.84 for an environmental corpus, and 0.78 for a biomedical corpus. Our results can be visualized as simple global maps, allowing human annotators to both explore corpus patterns in space and triage results for downstream analysis. Future work should not only focus on improving individual pipeline components, but also be informed by user needs derived from the potential spatial analysis and exploration of such corpora.
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.