Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42391609›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026

EDEL: enhancing dense retrievers for curation of biomedical knowledge bases.

Xing David Wang, Ulf Leser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xing David WangDepartment of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, 10099, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8645-9354
Ulf LeserDepartment of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, 10099, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft RTG2424
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationRetrieval of relevant papers from the literature is the first step in curating high-quality biomedical knowledge bases. While BM25 has long been the method of choice, dense retrieval models achieved improved accuracy by embedding queries and documents into dense vector representations. Existing knowledge bases provide a natural source for deriving query-document pairs for training such models. Current training approaches, however, do not take into account that some evidence described by knowledge base entries may only be partially expressed in document abstracts, while the full evidence is often contained in inaccessible full texts, introducing noise into binary relevance labels. In addition, existing approaches only make limited use of the knowledge base structure for selecting negative samples during training.

resultsWe propose EDEL, a novel dense bi-encoder for biomedical knowledge base curation to enable curators to find relevant papers for annotation faster. It introduces a loss function using graded relevance scores instead of binary labels to facilitate learning from partially grounded examples, together with a structured sampling strategy that exposes the model to diverse and hard negative examples during training. We evaluate EDEL's performance in two curation settings, namely precision oncology (on CIViC and OncoKB) and post-translational modifications (on UniProt). EDEL outperforms other state-of-the-art models in NDCG@10 by 1.5 and 3.4 percentage points, respectively. Ablation studies show the effectiveness of both innovations. These results indicate that EDEL can substantially improve literature retrieval for biomedical knowledge base curation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Code to reproduce our results is available at: https://github.com/WangXII/edel_repo.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyData CurationData MiningKnowledge BasesSoftwareBiocuration

Identifiers

PMID42391609
PMCPMC13371770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.