Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918777›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023

Avoiding background knowledge: literature based discovery from important information.

Judita Preiss

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Judita PreissInformation School, University of Sheffield, S1 4DP, Sheffield, UK. judita.preiss@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2158-5832

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomatic literature based discovery attempts to uncover new knowledge by connecting existing facts: information extracted from existing publications in the form of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] relations can be simply connected to deduce [Formula: see text]. However, using this approach, the quantity of proposed connections is often too vast to be useful. It can be reduced by using subject[Formula: see text](predicate)[Formula: see text]object triples as the [Formula: see text] relations, but too many proposed connections remain for manual verification.

resultsBased on the hypothesis that only a small number of subject-predicate-object triples extracted from a publication represent the paper's novel contribution(s), we explore using BERT embeddings to identify these before literature based discovery is performed utilizing only these, important, triples. While the method exploits the availability of full texts of publications in the CORD-19 dataset-making use of the fact that a novel contribution is likely to be mentioned in both an abstract and the body of a paper-to build a training set, the resulting tool can be applied to papers with only abstracts available. Candidate hidden knowledge pairs generated from unfiltered triples and those built from important triples only are compared using a variety of timeslicing gold standards.

conclusionsThe quantity of proposed knowledge pairs is reduced by a factor of [Formula: see text], and we show that when the gold standard is designed to avoid rewarding background knowledge, the precision obtained increases up to a factor of 10. We argue that the gold standard needs to be carefully considered, and release as yet undiscovered candidate knowledge pairs based on important triples alongside this work.

Indexed as

KnowledgeKnowledge DiscoveryLiterature based discoveryMachine learningSubject–predicate–object triplesTimeslicing gold standard

Identifiers

PMID36918777
PMCPMC10013236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read2
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.