ArticlePloS one2025
Optimising window size of semantic of classification model for identification of in-text citations based on context and intent.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Comparative performance of large language models for appraising bias in real-world evidence studies.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Citations in scientific literature act as channels for the sharing, transfer, and development of scientific knowledge. However, not all citations hold the same significance. Numerous taxonomies and machine learning models have been developed to analyze citations, but they often overlook the internal context of these citations. Moreover, it is worth noting that selecting the appropriate word embedding and classification models is crucial for achieving superior results. Word embeddings offer n-dimensional distributed representations of text, striving to capture the nuanced meanings of words. Deep learning-based word embedding techniques have garnered significant attention and found application in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, including text classification, sentiment analysis, and citation analysis. Current state-of-the-art techniques often use small datasets with fixed window sizes, resulting in the loss of contextual meaning. This study leverages two benchmark datasets encompassing a substantial volume of in-text citations to guide the selection of an optimal word embedding window size and classification approaches. A comparative analysis of various window sizes for in-text citations is conducted to identify crucial citations effectively. Additionally, Word2Vec embedding is employed in conjunction with deep learning models and machine learning models such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, Support Vector Machines (SVM), Decision Trees, and Naive Bayes.The evaluation employs precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy metrics for each combination of window sizes. The findings reveal that, particularly for lengthy in-text citations, larger citation windows are more adept at capturing the semantic essence of the references. Within the scope of this study, window sizes of 10 achieve superior accuracy and precision with both machine and deep learning models.
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.