ArticleBMC bioinformatics2024
Mining impactful discoveries from the biomedical literature.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- InterFeat: a pipeline for finding interesting scientific features.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiterature-based discovery (LBD) aims to help researchers to identify relations between concepts which are worthy of further investigation by text-mining the biomedical literature. While the LBD literature is rich and the field is considered mature, standard practice in the evaluation of LBD methods is methodologically poor and has not progressed on par with the domain. The lack of properly designed and decent-sized benchmark dataset hinders the progress of the field and its development into applications usable by biomedical experts.
resultsThis work presents a method for mining past discoveries from the biomedical literature. It leverages the impact made by a discovery, using descriptive statistics to detect surges in the prevalence of a relation across time. The validity of the method is tested against a baseline representing the state-of-the-art "time-sliced" method.
conclusionsThis method allows the collection of a large amount of time-stamped discoveries. These can be used for LBD evaluation, alleviating the long-standing issue of inadequate evaluation. It might also pave the way for more fine-grained LBD methods, which could exploit the diversity of these past discoveries to train supervised models. Finally the dataset (or some future version of it inspired by our method) could be used as a methodological tool for systematic reviews. We provide an online exploration tool in this perspective, available at https://brainmend.adaptcentre.ie/ .
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.