Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37669123›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2023

Towards precise PICO extraction from abstracts of randomized controlled trials using a section-specific learning approach.

Yan Hu, Vipina K Keloth, Kalpana Raja, Yong Chen, Hua Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yan HuSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77054, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-2413-5918
Vipina K KelothSection of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, 100 College St, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Kalpana RajaSection of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, 100 College St, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Yong ChenCenter for Health Analytics and Synthesis of Evidence (CHASE), Department of Biostatistics, Epide-miology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Hua XuSection of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, 100 College St, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Yale University · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System · US

Funding

PheBC: bias correction methods for EHR derived phenotypeR01LM013519 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CHEN, YONG, XU, HUA · 2021 to 2024
$1.6M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationAutomated extraction of participants, intervention, comparison/control, and outcome (PICO) from the randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is important for evidence synthesis. Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of applying natural language processing (NLP) for PICO extraction. However, the performance is not optimal due to the complexity of PICO information in RCT abstracts and the challenges involved in their annotation.

resultsWe propose a two-step NLP pipeline to extract PICO elements from RCT abstracts: (i) sentence classification using a prompt-based learning model and (ii) PICO extraction using a named entity recognition (NER) model. First, the sentences in abstracts were categorized into four sections namely background, methods, results, and conclusions. Next, the NER model was applied to extract the PICO elements from the sentences within the title and methods sections that include >96% of PICO information. We evaluated our proposed NLP pipeline on three datasets, the EBM-NLPmoddataset, a randomly selected and reannotated dataset of 500 RCT abstracts from the EBM-NLP corpus, a dataset of 150 COVID-19 RCT abstracts, and a dataset of 150 Alzheimer's disease (AD) RCT abstracts. The end-to-end evaluation reveals that our proposed approach achieved an overall micro F1 score of 0.833 on the EBM-NLPmod dataset, 0.928 on the COVID-19 dataset, and 0.899 on the AD dataset when measured at the token-level and an overall micro F1 score of 0.712 on EBM-NLPmod dataset, 0.850 on the COVID-19 dataset, and 0.805 on the AD dataset when measured at the entity-level. AVAILABILITY: Our codes and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/BIDS-Xu-Lab/section_specific_annotation_of_PICO. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Identifiers

PMID37669123
PMCPMC10500081
OpenAlexW4386462961

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.