ArticleInterdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences2024
A Combined Manual Annotation and Deep-Learning Natural Language Processing Study on Accurate Entity Extraction in Hereditary Disease Related Biomedical Literature.
Article in Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review on the generative AI applications in human medical genetics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Innovative strategies for reconstructing medical education through technology: a literature review.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We report a combined manual annotation and deep-learning natural language processing study to make accurate entity extraction in hereditary disease related biomedical literature. A total of 400 full articles were manually annotated based on published guidelines by experienced genetic interpreters at Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI). The performance of our manual annotations was assessed by comparing our re-annotated results with those publicly available. The overall Jaccard index was calculated to be 0.866 for the four entity types-gene, variant, disease and species. Both a BERT-based large name entity recognition (NER) model and a DistilBERT-based simplified NER model were trained, validated and tested, respectively. Due to the limited manually annotated corpus, Such NER models were fine-tuned with two phases. The F1-scores of BERT-based NER for gene, variant, disease and species are 97.28%, 93.52%, 92.54% and 95.76%, respectively, while those of DistilBERT-based NER are 95.14%, 86.26%, 91.37% and 89.92%, respectively. Most importantly, the entity type of variant has been extracted by a large language model for the first time and a comparable F1-score with the state-of-the-art variant extraction model tmVar has been achieved.
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.