ArticleBioinformatics advances2026
A FAIR gold-standard benchmark for geographic entity recognition in cancer genomics literature for biomedical NLP.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motivation: Geographic biases in cancer genomics research limit precision oncology's global applicability. Major consortia represent only 16 countries and sample less than 1% of 1.4 million publications worldwide. While automated literature mining could address these biases, the lack of benchmark datasets prevents rigorous development and validation of extraction models. We present a FAIR-compliant gold-standard benchmark of 129 manually curated cancer genomics studies spanning 46 countries, tripling geographic representation versus existing consortia. This dataset enables systematic evaluation of automated geographic information and molecular data extraction approaches and establishes a reference task for document-level geographic information extraction models. Results: Our benchmark highlights critical challenges for AI-powered literature mining. GeoBoost2 achieves 55% macro-F1 and 46% micro-F1 for patient-origin extraction across 129 articles, exposing precision-recall tradeoffs requiring domain adaptation. Seventy percent of studies include author affiliations from countries unrelated to patient cohorts, showing that metadata-based approaches systematically misattribute geographic provenance. Of 129 studies, 96 provide molecular data for 263 472 cancer patients, revealing substantial untapped literature-derived resources absent from major consortia and supporting training and comparison of domain-specific NLP models. Availability and implementation: The complete benchmark dataset, including manual annotations, automated extraction outputs, evaluation scripts, and supplementary documentation, is available at Zenodo with DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18259159.
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.