ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
Large-scale protein-protein post-translational modification extraction with distant supervision and confidence calibrated BioBERT.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interplay between NRF2 post-translational modifications and protein-protein interactions: Perspectives from emerging structural and functional evidence.Archives of biochemistry and biophysics · 2026Review
- GenPTM: A Generalizable Framework for Protein Post-Translational Modification Information Extraction from the Scientific Literature.Research square · 2026Article
- GlycoSiteMiner: an ML/AI-assisted literature mining-based pipeline for extracting glycosylation sites from PubMed abstracts.Glycobiology · 2025Article
- Mass spectrometry reveals age-dependent collagen decline in murine atria.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Article
- Decoding the functional impact of the cancer genome through protein-protein interactions.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2025Review
- Decoding Kidney Pathophysiology: Omics-Driven Approaches in Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Natural language processing (NLP) to facilitate abstract review in medical research: the application of BioBERT to exploring the 20-year use of NLP in medical research.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationProtein-protein interactions (PPIs) are critical to normal cellular function and are related to many disease pathways. A range of protein functions are mediated and regulated by protein interactions through post-translational modifications (PTM). However, only 4% of PPIs are annotated with PTMs in biological knowledge databases such as IntAct, mainly performed through manual curation, which is neither time- nor cost-effective. Here we aim to facilitate annotation by extracting PPIs along with their pairwise PTM from the literature by using distantly supervised training data using deep learning to aid human curation.
methodWe use the IntAct PPI database to create a distant supervised dataset annotated with interacting protein pairs, their corresponding PTM type, and associated abstracts from the PubMed database. We train an ensemble of BioBERT models-dubbed PPI-BioBERT-x10-to improve confidence calibration. We extend the use of ensemble average confidence approach with confidence variation to counteract the effects of class imbalance to extract high confidence predictions. RESULTS AND
conclusionThe PPI-BioBERT-x10 model evaluated on the test set resulted in a modest F1-micro 41.3 (P =5 8.1, R = 32.1). However, by combining high confidence and low variation to identify high quality predictions, tuning the predictions for precision, we retained 19% of the test predictions with 100% precision. We evaluated PPI-BioBERT-x10 on 18 million PubMed abstracts and extracted 1.6 million (546507 unique PTM-PPI triplets) PTM-PPI predictions, and filter [Formula: see text] (4584 unique) high confidence predictions. Of the 5700, human evaluation on a small randomly sampled subset shows that the precision drops to 33.7% despite confidence calibration and highlights the challenges of generalisability beyond the test set even with confidence calibration. We circumvent the problem by only including predictions associated with multiple papers, improving the precision to 58.8%. In this work, we highlight the benefits and challenges of deep learning-based text mining in practice, and the need for increased emphasis on confidence calibration to facilitate human curation efforts.
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.