ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Enhancing automated indexing of publication types and study designs in biomedical literature using full-text features.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Objective: Searching for biomedical articles by publication type or study design is essential for tasks like evidence synthesis. Prior work has relied solely on PubMed information or a limited set of types (e.g., randomized controlled trials). This study builds on our previous work by leveraging full-text features, alternative text representations, and advanced optimization techniques. Methods: Using a dataset of PubMed articles published between 1987 and 2023 with human-curated indexing terms, we fine-tuned BERT-based encoders (PubMedBERT, BioLinkBERT, SPECTER, SPECTER2, SPECTER2-Clf) to investigate whether text representations based on different pre-training objectives could benefit the task. We incorporated textual and verbalized metadata features, full-text extraction (rule-based, extractive, and abstractive summarization), and additional topical information about the articles. To improve calibration and mitigate label noise, we used asymmetric loss and label smoothing. We also explored contrastive learning approaches (SimCSE, ADNCE, HeroCon, WeighCon). Models were evaluated using precision, recall, F1 score (both micro- and macro-), and area under ROC curve (AUC). Results: Fine-tuning SPECTER2-base with adding the MeSH term "Animals", asymmetric loss with label smoothing, and WeighCon contrastive loss improved performance significantly over the previous best architecture (micro-F1: Conclusion: Full-text features, enhanced document representations, and fine-tuning optimizations improve publication type and study design indexing. Future work should refine label accuracy, better distill relevant article information, and expand label sets to meet needs of the research community. Data, code, and models are available at https://github.com/ScienceNLP-Lab/MultiTagger-v2.
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.