ArticleJAMIA open2025
Utilizing natural language processing to identify cancer-relevant publications at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop and test natural language processing (NLP) methods for screening and, ultimately, predicting the cancer relevance of peer-reviewed publications. Materials and Methods: Two datasets were used: (1) manually curated publications labeled for cancer relevance, co-authored by members of The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) and (2) a derived dataset containing cancer-related abstracts from American Association for Cancer Research journals and noncancer-related abstracts from other medical journals. Two text encoding methods were explored: term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) vectorization and various BERT embeddings. These representations served as inputs to 3 supervised machine learning classifiers: Support Vector Classification (SVC), Gradient Boosting Classification, and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) neural networks. Model performance was evaluated by comparing predictions to the "true" cancer-relevant labels in a withheld test set. Results: All machine learning models performed best when trained and tested within the derived dataset. Across the datasets, SVC and MLP both exhibited strong performance, with F1 scores as high as 0.976 and 0.997, respectively. BioBERT embeddings resulted in slightly higher metrics when compared to TF-IDF vectorization across most models. Discussion: Models trained on the derived data performed very well internally; however, weaker performance was noted when these models were tested on the KUCC dataset. This finding highlights the subjective nature of cancer-relevant determinations. In contrast, KUCC trained models had high predictive performance when tested on the derived-specific classifications, showing that models trained on the KUCC dataset may be suitable for wider cancer-relevant prediction. Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest that NLP can effectively automate the classification of cancer-relevant publications, enhancing research productivity tracking; however, great care should be taken in selecting the appropriate data, text representation approach, and machine learning approach.
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.