ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2025
Enriched knowledge representation in biological fields: a case study of literature-based discovery in Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2025. 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.
- Improving biomedical entity linking with generative relevance feedback.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn Literature-based Discovery (LBD), Swanson's original ABC model brought together isolated public knowledge statements and assembled them to infer putative hypotheses via logical connections. Modern LBD studies that scale up this approach through automation typically rely on a simple entity-based knowledge graph with co-occurrences and/or semantic triples as basic building blocks. However, our analysis of a knowledge graph constructed for a recent LBD system reveals limitations arising from such pairwise representations, which further negatively impact knowledge inference. Using LBD as the context and motivation in this work, we explore limitations of using pairwise relationships only as knowledge representation in knowledge graphs, and we identify impacts of these limitations on knowledge inference. We argue that enhanced knowledge representation is beneficial for biological knowledge representation in general, as well as for both the quality and the specificity of hypotheses proposed with LBD.
resultsBased on a systematic analysis of one co-occurrence-based LBD system focusing on Alzheimer's Disease, we identify 7 types of limitations arising from the exclusive use of pairwise relationships in a standard knowledge graph-including the need to capture more than two entities interacting together in a single event-and 3 types of negative impacts on knowledge inferred with the graph-Experimentally infeasible hypotheses, Literature-inconsistent hypotheses, and Oversimplified hypotheses explanations. We also present an indicative distribution of different types of relationships. Pairwise relationships are an essential component in representation frameworks for knowledge discovery. However, only 20% of discoveries are perfectly represented with pairwise relationships alone. 73% require a combination of pairwise relationships and nested relationships. The remaining 7% are represented with pairwise relationships, nested relationships, and hypergraphs.
conclusionWe argue that the standard entity pair-based knowledge graph, while essential for representing basic binary relations, results in important limitations for comprehensive biological knowledge representation and impacts downstream tasks such as proposing meaningful discoveries in LBD. These limitations can be mitigated by integrating more semantically complex knowledge representation strategies, including capturing collective interactions and allowing for nested entities. The use of more sophisticated knowledge representation will benefit biological fields with more expressive knowledge graphs. Downstream tasks, such as LBD, can benefit from richer representations as well, allowing for generation of implicit knowledge discoveries and explanations for disease diagnosis, treatment, and mechanism that are more biologically meaningful.
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.