ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2022
Towards a unified search: Improving PubMed retrieval with full text.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ScRAPdb: an integrated pan-omics database for the Saccharomyces cerevisiae reference assembly panel.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Clinical Impact of "Real World Data" and Blockchain on Public Health: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- APPRAISE-RS: Automated, updated, participatory, and personalized treatment recommender systems based on GRADE methodology.Heliyon · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA significant number of recent articles in PubMed have full text available in PubMed Central®, and the availability of full texts has been consistently growing. However, it is not currently possible for a user to simultaneously query the contents of both databases and receive a single integrated search result. In this study, we investigate how to score full text articles given a multitoken query and how to combine those full text article scores with scores originating from abstracts and achieve an overall improved retrieval performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor scoring full text articles, we propose a method to combine information coming from different sections by converting the traditionally used BM25 scores into log odds ratio scores which can be treated uniformly. We further propose a method that successfully combines scores from two heterogenous retrieval sources - full text articles and abstract only articles - by balancing the contributions of their respective scores through a probabilistic transformation. We use PubMed click data that consists of queries sampled from PubMed user logs along with a subset of retrieved and clicked documents to train the probabilistic functions and to evaluate retrieval effectiveness. RESULTS AND
conclusionsRandom ranking achieves 0.579 MAP score on our PubMed click data. BM25 ranking on PubMed abstracts improves the MAP by 10.6%. For full text documents, experiments confirm that BM25 section scores are of different value depending on the section type and are not directly comparable. Naïvely using the body text of articles along with abstract text degrades the overall quality of the search. The proposed log odds ratio scores normalize and combine the contributions of occurrences of query tokens in different sections. By including full text where available, we gain another 0.67%, or 7% relative improvement over abstract alone. We find an advantage in the more accurate estimate of the value of BM25 scores depending on the section from which they were produced. Taking the sum of top three section scores performs the best.
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.