ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2023
Towards precise PICO extraction from abstracts of randomized controlled trials using a section-specific learning approach.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- A span-based model for extracting overlapping PICO entities from randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Trial
- Natural language processing reveals network structure of pain communication in social media using discrete mathematical analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evidence triangulator: using large language models to extract and synthesize causal evidence across study designs.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Natural Language Processing in Support of Evidence-based Medicine: A Scoping Review.Findings of ACL. ACL · 2025Article
- TrialSieve: A Comprehensive Biomedical Information Extraction Framework for PICO, Meta-Analysis, and Drug Repurposing.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Semi-supervised learning from small annotated data and large unlabeled data for fine-grained Participants, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes entity recognition.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Computational tools and data integration to accelerate vaccine development: challenges, opportunities, and future directions.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Automated Mass Extraction of Over 680,000 PICOs from Clinical Study Abstracts Using Generative AI: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Article
- Year 2023 in Biomedical Natural Language Processing: a Tribute to Large Language Models and Generative AI.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Article
- Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Natural language processing in Alzheimer's disease research: Systematic review of methods, data, and efficacy.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.