ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
Automated information extraction model enhancing traditional Chinese medicine RCT evidence extraction (Evi-BERT): algorithm development and validation.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- Natural Language Processing in Support of Evidence-based Medicine: A Scoping Review.Findings of ACL. ACL · 2025Article
- Efficient evidence selection for systematic reviews in traditional Chinese medicine.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the field of evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are of critical importance for writing clinical guidelines and providing guidance to practicing physicians. Currently, RCTs rely heavily on manual extraction, but this method has data breadth limitations and is less efficient. Objectives: To expand the breadth of data and improve the efficiency of obtaining clinical evidence, here, we introduce an automated information extraction model for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) RCT evidence extraction. Methods: We adopt the Evidence-Bidirectional Encoder Representation from Transformers (Evi-BERT) for automated information extraction, which is combined with rule extraction. Eleven disease types and 48,523 research articles from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data, and VIP databases were selected as the data source for extraction. We then constructed a manually annotated dataset of TCM clinical literature to train the model, including ten evidence elements and 24,244 datapoints. We chose two models, BERT-CRF and BiLSTM-CRF, as the baseline, and compared the training effects with Evi-BERT and Evi-BERT combined with rule expression (RE). Results: We found that Evi-BERT combined with RE achieved the best performance (precision score = 0.926, Recall = 0.952, F1 score = 0.938) and had the best robustness. We totally summarized 113 pieces of rule datasets in the regulation extraction procedure. Our model dramatically expands the amount of data that can be searched and greatly improves efficiency without losing accuracy. Conclusion: Our work provided an intelligent approach to extracting clinical evidence for TCM RCT data. Our model can help physicians reduce the time spent reading journals and rapidly speed up the screening of clinical trial evidence to help generate accurate clinical reference guidelines. Additionally, we hope the structured clinical evidence and structured knowledge extracted from this study will help other researchers build large language models in TCM.
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.