Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35606797›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2022

An annotated corpus of clinical trial publications supporting schema-based relational information extraction.

Olivia Sanchez-Graillet, Christian Witte, Frank Grimm, Philipp Cimiano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The suitability of UMLS and SNOMED-CT for encoding outcome concepts.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Olivia Sanchez-GrailletSemantic Computing Group, Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, 33619, Germany. olivia.sanchez@uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3483-265X
Christian WitteSemantic Computing Group, Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, 33619, Germany.
Frank GrimmSemantic Computing Group, Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, 33619, Germany.
Philipp CimianoSemantic Computing Group, Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC), Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, 33619, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 376059226 / SPP-1999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evidence-based medicine paradigm requires the ability to aggregate and compare outcomes of interventions across different trials. This can be facilitated and partially automatized by information extraction systems. In order to support the development of systems that can extract information from published clinical trials at a fine-grained and comprehensive level to populate a knowledge base, we present a richly annotated corpus at two levels. At the first level, entities that describe components of the PICO elements (e.g., population's age and pre-conditions, dosage of a treatment, etc.) are annotated. The second level comprises schema-level (i.e., slot-filling templates) annotations corresponding to complex PICO elements and other concepts related to a clinical trial (e.g. the relation between an intervention and an arm, the relation between an outcome and an intervention, etc.).

resultsThe final corpus includes 211 annotated clinical trial abstracts with substantial agreement between annotators at the entity and scheme level. The mean Kappa value for the glaucoma and T2DM corpora was 0.74 and 0.68, respectively, for single entities. The micro-averaged F

conclusionsIn this work, we have created a corpus that goes beyond the existing clinical trial corpora, since it is annotated in a schematic way that represents the classes and properties defined in an ontology. Although the corpus is small, it has fine-grained annotations and could be used to fine-tune pre-trained machine learning models and transformers to the specific task of extracting information about clinical trial abstracts.For future work, we will use the corpus for training information extraction systems that extract single entities, and predict template slot-fillers (i.e., class data/object properties) to populate a knowledge base that relies on the C-TrO ontology for the description of clinical trials. The resulting corpus and the code to measure inter-annotation agreement and the baseline method are publicly available at https://zenodo.org/record/6365890.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicGlaucomaInformation Storage and RetrievalMachine LearningHumansKnowledge BasesNatural Language ProcessingClinical trial annotated corpusKnowledge base populationRelational information extractionSchematic annotation

Identifiers

PMID35606797
PMCPMC9128209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.