ArticleInternational journal on digital libraries2024
Creating and validating a scholarly knowledge graph using natural language processing and microtask crowdsourcing.
Article in International journal on digital libraries, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the growing number of scholarly publications, finding relevant articles becomes increasingly difficult. Scholarly knowledge graphs can be used to organize the scholarly knowledge presented within those publications and represent them in machine-readable formats. Natural language processing (NLP) provides scalable methods to automatically extract knowledge from articles and populate scholarly knowledge graphs. However, NLP extraction is generally not sufficiently accurate and, thus, fails to generate high granularity quality data. In this work, we present TinyGenius, a methodology to validate NLP-extracted scholarly knowledge statements using microtasks performed with crowdsourcing. TinyGenius is employed to populate a paper-centric knowledge graph, using five distinct NLP methods. We extend our previous work of the TinyGenius methodology in various ways. Specifically, we discuss the NLP tasks in more detail and include an explanation of the data model. Moreover, we present a user evaluation where participants validate the generated NLP statements. The results indicate that employing microtasks for statement validation is a promising approach despite the varying participant agreement for different microtasks.
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.