ArticleScientific reports2021
An updated, computable MEDication-Indication resource for biomedical research.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causal knowledge graph analysis identifies adverse drug effects.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Modeling the genomic architecture of adiposity and anthropometrics across the lifespan.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Extractive Clinical Question-Answering With Multianswer and Multifocus Questions: Data Set Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR AI · 2023Article
- Evaluating resources composing the PheMAP knowledge base to enhance high-throughput phenotyping.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Novel Analysis Methods to Mine Immune-Mediated Phenotypes and Find Genetic Variation Within the Electronic Health Record (Roadmap for Phenotype to Genotype: Immunogenomics).The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The MEDication-Indication (MEDI) knowledgebase has been utilized in research with electronic health records (EHRs) since its publication in 2013. To account for new drugs and terminology updates, we rebuilt MEDI to overhaul the knowledgebase for modern EHRs. Indications for prescribable medications were extracted using natural language processing and ontology relationships from six publicly available resources: RxNorm, Side Effect Resource 4.1, Mayo Clinic, WebMD, MedlinePlus, and Wikipedia. We compared the estimated precision and recall between the previous MEDI (MEDI-1) and the updated version (MEDI-2) with manual review. MEDI-2 contains 3031 medications and 186,064 indications. The MEDI-2 high precision subset (HPS) includes indications found within RxNorm or at least three other resources. MEDI-2 and MEDI-2 HPS contain 13% more medications and over triple the indications compared to MEDI-1 and MEDI-1 HPS, respectively. Manual review showed MEDI-2 achieves the same precision (0.60) with better recall (0.89 vs. 0.79) compared to MEDI-1. Likewise, MEDI-2 HPS had the same precision (0.92) and improved recall (0.65 vs. 0.55) than MEDI-1 HPS. The combination of MEDI-1 and MEDI-2 achieved a recall of 0.95. In updating MEDI, we present a more comprehensive medication-indication knowledgebase that can continue to facilitate applications and research with EHRs.
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.