Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36180888›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

PICO entity extraction for preclinical animal literature.

Qianying Wang, Jing Liao, Mirella Lapata, Malcolm Macleod

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. A span-based model for extracting overlapping PICO entities from randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Qianying WangCCBS, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jing LiaoCCBS, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Mirella LapataILCC, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Malcolm MacleodCCBS, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. malcolm.macleod@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9187-9839
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNatural language processing could assist multiple tasks in systematic reviews to reduce workflow, including the extraction of PICO elements such as study populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes. The PICO framework provides a basis for the retrieval and selection for inclusion of evidence relevant to a specific systematic review question, and automatic approaches to PICO extraction have been developed particularly for reviews of clinical trial findings. Considering the difference between preclinical animal studies and clinical trials, developing separate approaches is necessary. Facilitating preclinical systematic reviews will inform the translation from preclinical to clinical research.

methodsWe randomly selected 400 abstracts from the PubMed Central Open Access database which described in vivo animal research and manually annotated these with PICO phrases for Species, Strain, methods of Induction of disease model, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome. We developed a two-stage workflow for preclinical PICO extraction. Firstly we fine-tuned BERT with different pre-trained modules for PICO sentence classification. Then, after removing the text irrelevant to PICO features, we explored LSTM-, CRF- and BERT-based models for PICO entity recognition. We also explored a self-training approach because of the small training corpus.

resultsFor PICO sentence classification, BERT models using all pre-trained modules achieved an F1 score of over 80%, and models pre-trained on PubMed abstracts achieved the highest F1 of 85%. For PICO entity recognition, fine-tuning BERT pre-trained on PubMed abstracts achieved an overall F1 of 71% and satisfactory F1 for Species (98%), Strain (70%), Intervention (70%) and Outcome (67%). The score of Induction and Comparator is less satisfactory, but F1 of Comparator can be improved to 50% by applying self-training.

conclusionsOur study indicates that of the approaches tested, BERT pre-trained on PubMed abstracts is the best for both PICO sentence classification and PICO entity recognition in the preclinical abstracts. Self-training yields better performance for identifying comparators and strains.

Indexed as

LanguageNatural Language ProcessingAnimalsPublicationsPubMedSystematic Reviews as TopicInformation extractionNamed entity recognitionPICOPreclinical animal studySelf-training

Identifiers

PMID36180888
PMCPMC9524079
OpenAlexW4298110672

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.