ArticleBioinformatics advances2025
Unlocking the potential of PubMed Central supplementary data files.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 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.
- Enhancing the SIB Literature Services (SIBiLS) with annotations to support biocuration.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Biocuration workflows often rely on comprehensive literature searches for specific biological entities. However, standard search engines such as MEDLINE and PubMed Central provide an incomplete picture of the scientific literature because they do not index the increasing amount of valuable information published in supplementary data files. Over two years, we addressed this gap by systematically extracting text from a large proportion (85%) of these files, resulting in 35 million searchable documents. To assess the information gain provided by supplementary data files beyond the manuscripts, we searched both for mentions of dozens of Global Core Biodata Resources (GCBRs), which are fundamental biological databases essential for the life sciences. We searched for mentions of GCBR names and accession numbers, which uniquely identify biological entities within these resources. Results: The recall gain from using the supplementary data files to search for articles mentioning resource names is 6%. In addition, 97% of all accession numbers identified were published in the supplementary data files, highlighting their increasing importance for highly specific topics or curation pipelines. We show that the number of accession numbers published in the supplementary data files is increasing year on year, but that 87% of these are published in Excel files. This format facilitates human readability and accessibility, but severely limits machine reusability and interoperability. We therefore discuss alternative and complementary approaches to the publication of research data. Availability and implementation: All extracted data are accessible and searchable as a collection on the BiodiversityPMC platform (https://biodiversitypmc.sibils.org/).
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.