ArticleBMC bioinformatics2021
Automatic consistency assurance for literature-based gene ontology annotation.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Auricular acupressure for constipation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Pooled it
- Integration of background knowledge for automatic detection of inconsistencies in gene ontology annotation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Multifactoral immune modulation potentiates durable remission in multiple models of aggressive malignancy.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2024Article
- Deep learning in bioinformatics.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2023Article
- Exploring automatic inconsistency detection for literature-based gene ontology annotation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiterature-based gene ontology (GO) annotation is a process where expert curators use uniform expressions to describe gene functions reported in research papers, creating computable representations of information about biological systems. Manual assurance of consistency between GO annotations and the associated evidence texts identified by expert curators is reliable but time-consuming, and is infeasible in the context of rapidly growing biological literature. A key challenge is maintaining consistency of existing GO annotations as new studies are published and the GO vocabulary is updated.
resultsIn this work, we introduce a formalisation of biological database annotation inconsistencies, identifying four distinct types of inconsistency. We propose a novel and efficient method using state-of-the-art text mining models to automatically distinguish between consistent GO annotation and the different types of inconsistent GO annotation. We evaluate this method using a synthetic dataset generated by directed manipulation of instances in an existing corpus, BC4GO. We provide detailed error analysis for demonstrating that the method achieves high precision on more confident predictions.
conclusionsTwo models built using our method for distinct annotation consistency identification tasks achieved high precision and were robust to updates in the GO vocabulary. Our approach demonstrates clear value for human-in-the-loop curation scenarios.
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.