Dataset Information

Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

PubMed's provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed's composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed's reliability, while exploring PubMed's role in the current scholarly communications landscape.

Methods

The percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted.

Results

Almost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research.

Conclusion

The differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.

SUBMITTER: Ossom Williamson P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6300231 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDeep Learning opens up opportunities for routinely scanning large bodies of biomedical literature and clinical narratives to represent the meaning of biomedical and clinical terms. However, the validation and integration of this knowledge on a scale requires cross checking with ground truths (i.e. evidence-based resources) that are unavailable in an actionable or computable form. In this paper we explore how to turn information about diagnoses, prognoses, therapies and other clinical concepts into computable knowledge using free-text data about human and animal health. We used a Semantic Deep Learning approach that combines the Semantic Web technologies and Deep Learning to acquire and validate knowledge about 11 well-known medical conditions mined from two sets of unstructured free-text data: 300?K PubMed Systematic Review articles (the PMSB dataset) and 2.5?M veterinary clinical notes (the VetCN dataset). For each target condition we obtained 20 related clinical concepts using two deep learning methods applied separately on the two datasets, resulting in 880 term pairs (target term, candidate term). Each concept, represented by an n-gram, is mapped to UMLS using MetaMap; we also developed a bespoke method for mapping short forms (e.g. abbreviations and acronyms). Existing ontologies were used to formally represent associations. We also create ontological modules and illustrate how the extracted knowledge can be queried. The evaluation was performed using the content within BMJ Best Practice.ResultsMetaMap achieves an F measure of 88% (precision 85%, recall 91%) when applied directly to the total of 613 unique candidate terms for the 880 term pairs. When the processing of short forms is included, MetaMap achieves an F measure of 94% (precision 92%, recall 96%). Validation of the term pairs with BMJ Best Practice yields precision between 98 and 99%.ConclusionsThe Semantic Deep Learning approach can transform neural embeddings built from unstructured free-text data into reliable and reusable One Health knowledge using ontologies and content from BMJ Best Practice.