Dataset Information

Biotea: RDFizing PubMed Central in support for the paper as an interface to the Web of Data.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The World Wide Web has become a dissemination platform for scientific and non-scientific publications. However, most of the information remains locked up in discrete documents that are not always interconnected or machine-readable. The connectivity tissue provided by RDF technology has not yet been widely used to support the generation of self-describing, machine-readable documents. RESULTS: In this paper, we present our approach to the generation of self-describing machine-readable scholarly documents. We understand the scientific document as an entry point and interface to the Web of Data. We have semantically processed the full-text, open-access subset of PubMed Central. Our RDF model and resulting dataset make extensive use of existing ontologies and semantic enrichment services. We expose our model, services, prototype, and datasets at http://biotea.idiginfo.org/ CONCLUSIONS: The semantic processing of biomedical literature presented in this paper embeds documents within the Web of Data and facilitates the execution of concept-based queries against the entire digital library. Our approach delivers a flexible and adaptable set of tools for metadata enrichment and semantic processing of biomedical documents. Our model delivers a semantically rich and highly interconnected dataset with self-describing content so that software can make effective use of it.

SUBMITTER: Garcia Castro LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3804025 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biotea: RDFizing PubMed Central in support for the paper as an interface to the Web of Data.

Garcia Castro L Jael LJ McLaughlin C C Garcia A A

Journal of biomedical semantics 20130415

<h4>Background</h4>The World Wide Web has become a dissemination platform for scientific and non-scientific publications. However, most of the information remains locked up in discrete documents that are not always interconnected or machine-readable. The connectivity tissue provided by RDF technology has not yet been widely used to support the generation of self-describing, machine-readable documents.<h4>Results</h4>In this paper, we present our approach to the generation of self-describing mach ...[more]

PMID: 23734622

Similar Datasets

Project description:An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction. We searched PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar to identify EEoCs issued for publications in PubMed and PMC up to 22 August 2016. We also searched the archives of the Retraction Watch blog, some journal and publisher websites, and studies of EEoCs. In addition, we searched for retractions of EEoCs and affected articles in PubMed up to 8 December 2016. We analyzed overall historical trends, as well as reported reasons and subsequent editorial actions related to EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016. After screening 5,076 records, we identified 230 EEoCs that affect 300 publications indexed in PubMed, the earliest issued in 1985. Half of the primary EEoCs were issued between 2014 and 2016 (52%). We found evidence of some EEoCs that had been removed by the publisher without leaving a record and some were not submitted for PubMed or PMC indexing. A minority of publications affected by EEoCs had been retracted by early December 2016 (25%). For the subset of 92 EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016, affecting 99 publications, the rate of retraction was similar (29%). The majority of EEoCs were issued because of concerns with validity of data, methods, or interpretation of the publication (68%), and 31% of cases remained open. Issues with images were raised in 40% of affected publications. Ongoing monitoring after the study identified another 17 EEoCs to year's end in 2016, increasing the number of EEoCs to 247 and publications in PubMed known to be affected by EEoCs to 320 at the end of 2016. EEoCs have been rare publishing events in the biomedical literature, but their use has been increasing. Most have not led to retractions, and many remain unresolved. Lack of prominence and inconsistencies in management of EEoCs reduce the ability of these notices to alert the scientific community to potentially serious problems in publications. EEoCs will be made identifiable in PubMed in 2017.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-frequency patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments are used to measure patients' symptoms after surgery for surgical research; however, the quality of those longitudinal PRO data has seldom been discussed.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine data quality-influencing factors and to profile error trajectories of data longitudinally collected via paper-and-pencil (P&P) or web-based assessment (electronic PRO [ePRO]) after thoracic surgery.MethodsWe extracted longitudinal PRO data with 678 patients scheduled for lung surgery from an observational study (n=512) and a randomized clinical trial (n=166) on the evaluation of different perioperative care strategies. PROs were assessed by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Lung Cancer Module and single-item Quality of Life Scale before surgery and then daily after surgery until discharge or up to 14 days of hospitalization. Patient compliance and data error were identified and compared between P&P and ePRO. Generalized estimating equations model and 2-piecewise model were used to describe trajectories of error incidence over time and to identify the risk factors.ResultsAmong 678 patients, 629 with at least 2 PRO assessments, 440 completed 3347 P&P assessments and 189 completed 1291 ePRO assessments. In total, 49.4% of patients had at least one error, including (1) missing items (64.69%, 1070/1654), (2) modifications without signatures (27.99%, 463/1654), (3) selection of multiple options (3.02%, 50/1654), (4) missing patient signatures (2.54%, 42/1654), (5) missing researcher signatures (1.45%, 24/1654), and (6) missing completion dates (0.30%, 5/1654). Patients who completed ePRO had fewer errors than those who completed P&P assessments (ePRO: 30.2% [57/189] vs. P&P: 57.7% [254/440]; P<.001). Compared with ePRO patients, those using P&P were older, less educated, and sicker. Common risk factors of having errors were a lower education level (P&P: odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.20-1.62; P<.001; ePRO: OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.72; P=.003), treated in a provincial hospital (P&P: OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.10-5.33; P<.001; ePRO: OR 4.73, 95% CI 2.18-10.25; P<.001), and with severe disease (P&P: OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33-1.99; P<.001; ePRO: OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.53-4.75; P<.001). Errors peaked on postoperative day (POD) 1 for P&P, and on POD 2 for ePRO.ConclusionsIt is possible to improve data quality of longitudinally collected PRO through ePRO, compared with P&P. However, ePRO-related sampling bias needs to be considered when designing clinical research using longitudinal PROs as major outcomes.

Dataset Information

Biotea: RDFizing PubMed Central in support for the paper as an interface to the Web of Data.

Publications

Biotea: RDFizing PubMed Central in support for the paper as an interface to the Web of Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure