Dataset Information

Identification of conclusive association entities in biomedical articles.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Conclusive association entities (CAEs) in a biomedical article a are those biomedical entities (e.g., genes, diseases, and chemicals) that are specifically involved in the associations concluded in a. Identification of CAEs among candidate entities in the title and the abstract of an article is essential for curation and exploration of conclusive findings in biomedical literature. However, the identification is challenging, as it is difficult to conduct semantic analysis to determine whether an entity is a specific target on which the reported findings are conclusive enough.

Results

We investigate how five types of statistical indicators can contribute to prioritizing the candidate entities so that CAEs can be ranked on the top for exploratory analysis. The indicators work on titles and abstracts of articles. They are evaluated by the CAEs designated by biomedical experts to curate entity associations concluded in articles. The indicators have significantly different performance in ranking the CAEs identified by the biomedical experts. Some indicators do not perform well in CAE identification, even though they were used in many techniques for article retrieval and keyword extraction. Learning-based fusion of certain indicators can further improve performance. Most of the articles have at least one of their CAEs successfully ranked at top-2 positions. The CAEs can be visualized to support exploratory analysis of conclusive results on the CAEs.

Conclusion

With proper fusion of the statistical indicators, CAEs in biomedical articles can be identified for exploratory analysis. The results are essential for the indexing of biomedical articles to support validation of highly related conclusive findings in biomedical literature.

SUBMITTER: Liu RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6322258 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both.Methodology and principal findingsInterventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with "no statistical expert" and "no checklist" as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2x2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6-24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: -0.3-+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3-6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality.Conclusions and significanceThis prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.