ArticleData in brief2025
uCite: The union of nine large-scale public PubMed citation datasets with reliability filtering.
Article in Data in brief, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scaling Biomedical Text-Mining: Transformers, GenAI, and Drug Discovery.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- uCite: The union of nine large-scale public PubMed citation datasets with reliability filtering.Data in brief · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There has been a recent push to make public, aggregate, and increase coverage of bibliographic citation data. Here we describe uCite, a citation dataset containing 564 million PubMed citation pairs aggregated from the following nine sources: PubMed Central, iCite, OpenCitations, Dimensions, Microsoft Academic Graph, Aminer, Semantic Scholar, Lens, and OpCitance. Of these, 51 million (9%) were labeled unreliable, as determined by patterns of source discrepancies explained by ambiguous metadata, crosswalk, and typographical errors, citing future publications, and multi-paper documents. Each source contributes to improved coverage and reliability, but varies dramatically in precision and recall, estimates of which are contrasted with the Web of Science and Scopus herein.
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.