Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33647518›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2021

Toward assessing clinical trial publications for reporting transparency.

Halil Kilicoglu, Graciela Rosemblat, Linh Hoang, Sahil Wadhwa, Zeshan Peng, Mario Malički, Jodi Schneider, Gerben Ter Riet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Halil KilicogluSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA; U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: halil@illinois.edu.
Graciela RosemblatU.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Linh HoangSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
Sahil WadhwaDepartment of Statistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
Zeshan PengU.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Mario MaličkiMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jodi SchneiderSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA.
Gerben Ter RietUrban Vitality Center of Expertise, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Cardiology Heart Center, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

Semantic Relation Extraction from Biomedical Text - Methods and ApplicationsZIALM010012 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KILICOGLU, HACI · 2018 to 2019
$2.1M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA LM010012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo annotate a corpus of randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications with the checklist items of CONSORT reporting guidelines and using the corpus to develop text mining methods for RCT appraisal.

methodsWe annotated a corpus of 50 RCT articles at the sentence level using 37 fine-grained CONSORT checklist items. A subset (31 articles) was double-annotated and adjudicated, while 19 were annotated by a single annotator and reconciled by another. We calculated inter-annotator agreement at the article and section level using MASI (Measuring Agreement on Set-Valued Items) and at the CONSORT item level using Krippendorff's α. We experimented with two rule-based methods (phrase-based and section header-based) and two supervised learning approaches (support vector machine and BioBERT-based neural network classifiers), for recognizing 17 methodology-related items in the RCT Methods sections.

resultsWe created CONSORT-TM consisting of 10,709 sentences, 4,845 (45%) of which were annotated with 5,246 labels. A median of 28 CONSORT items (out of possible 37) were annotated per article. Agreement was moderate at the article and section levels (average MASI: 0.60 and 0.64, respectively). Agreement varied considerably among individual checklist items (Krippendorff's α= 0.06-0.96). The model based on BioBERT performed best overall for recognizing methodology-related items (micro-precision: 0.82, micro-recall: 0.63, micro-F1: 0.71). Combining models using majority vote and label aggregation further improved precision and recall, respectively.

conclusionOur annotated corpus, CONSORT-TM, contains more fine-grained information than earlier RCT corpora. Low frequency of some CONSORT items made it difficult to train effective text mining models to recognize them. For the items commonly reported, CONSORT-TM can serve as a testbed for text mining methods that assess RCT transparency, rigor, and reliability, and support methods for peer review and authoring assistance. Minor modifications to the annotation scheme and a larger corpus could facilitate improved text mining models. CONSORT-TM is publicly available at https://github.com/kilicogluh/CONSORT-TM.

Indexed as

ChecklistSupport Vector MachineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSerial PublicationsCONSORTCorpus annotationReporting guidelinesSentence classificationText mining

Identifiers

PMID33647518
PMCPMC8112250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.