ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
TrialSieve: A Comprehensive Biomedical Information Extraction Framework for PICO, Meta-Analysis, and Drug Repurposing.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work introduces TrialSieve, a novel framework for biomedical information extraction that enhances clinical meta-analysis and drug repurposing. By extending traditional PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) methodologies, TrialSieve incorporates hierarchical, treatment group-based graphs, enabling more comprehensive and quantitative comparisons of clinical outcomes. TrialSieve was used to annotate 1609 PubMed abstracts, 170,557 annotations, and 52,638 final spans, incorporating 20 unique annotation categories that capture a diverse range of biomedical entities relevant to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The performance (accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score) of four natural-language processing (NLP) models (BioLinkBERT, BioBERT, KRISSBERT, PubMedBERT) and the large language model (LLM), GPT-4o, was evaluated using the human-annotated TrialSieve dataset. BioLinkBERT had the best accuracy (0.875) and recall (0.679) for biomedical entity labeling, whereas PubMedBERT had the best precision (0.614) and F1-score (0.639). Error analysis showed that NLP models trained on noisy, human-annotated data can match or, in most cases, surpass human performance. This finding highlights the feasibility of fully automating biomedical information extraction, even when relying on imperfectly annotated datasets. An annotator user study (n = 39) revealed significant (
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.