ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2022
Biomedical Literature Mining for Repurposing Laboratory Tests.
Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemiological studies identifying biological markers of disease state are valuable, but can be time-consuming, expensive, and require extensive intuition and expertise. Furthermore, not all hypothesized markers will be borne out in a study, suggesting that high-quality initial hypotheses are crucial. In this chapter, we describe a high-throughput pipeline to produce a ranked list of high-quality hypothesized biomarkers for diseases. We review an example use of this approach to generate a large number of candidate disease biomarker hypotheses derived from machine learning models, filter and rank them according to their potential novelty using text mining, and corroborate the most promising hypotheses with further statistical modeling. The example use of the pipeline uses a large electronic health record dataset and the PubMed corpus, to find several promising hypothesized laboratory tests with previously undocumented correlations to particular diseases.
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.