ArticleScientific reports2026
InterFeat: a pipeline for finding interesting scientific features.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Finding interesting phenomena is the core of scientific discovery, but the notion of interestingness is vaguely defined and heavily reliant on manual judgment. We present InterFeat, an integrative pipeline for automating the discovery and ranking of interesting features (InterFeat) in structured biomedical data. The pipeline combines machine learning, knowledge graphs, literature search and large language models. We formalize “interestingness” as a combination of novelty, utility and plausibility. In a time-split evaluation, InterFeat was trained only on historical data, and managed to surface risk factors years ahead of their eventual discovery. Across eight major diseases, up to 21% of suggested factors appeared in the literature after the time cut-off. In a human evaluation, four senior physicians annotated InterFeat’s suggestions, deeming 28% of them interesting. Out of highly-ranked candidates, 40–53% were interesting, vs. 0–20% for SHAP and L1 baselines. InterFeat addresses the challenge of operationalizing “interestingness” scalably for any target with existing literature. Code and data: https://github.com/LinialLab/InterFeat
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.