Dataset Information

Crossmaps: visualization of overlapping relationships in collections of journal papers.

ABSTRACT: A crossmapping technique is introduced for visualizing multiple and overlapping relations among entity types in collections of journal articles. Groups of entities from two entity types are crossplotted to show correspondence of relations. For example, author collaboration groups are plotted on the x axis against groups of papers (research fronts) on the y axis. At the intersection of each pair of author group/research front pairs a circular symbol is plotted whose size is proportional to the number of times that authors in the group appear as authors in papers in the research front. Entity groups are found by agglomerative hierarchical clustering using conventional similarity measures. Crossmaps comprise a simple technique that is particularly suited to showing overlap in relations among entity groups. Particularly useful crossmaps are: research fronts against base reference clusters, research fronts against author collaboration groups, and research fronts against term co-occurrence clusters. When exploring the knowledge domain of a collection of journal papers, it is useful to have several crossmaps of different entity pairs, complemented by research front timelines and base reference cluster timelines.

SUBMITTER: Morris SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC387310 | biostudies-other | 2004 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsAvailable data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literature search was conducted to identify matching studies in peer-reviewed medical journals. Outcome measures were the American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20 (efficacy) and withdrawal due to adverse events (safety). As effect size odds ratios were estimated for each active trial arm vs. control arm (i.e. for both sources: FDA and journal report), followed by calculation of the ratios of the FDA and journal report odds ratios. A ratio of odds ratios not equal to 1 was categorized as a discrepancy.ResultsFDA reports were available for 8 of 9 FDA-approved biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis; all identified trials (34) except one were published in peer-reviewed journals. Overall, discrepancies were noted for 20 of the 33 evaluated trials. Differences in the apparent benefit reporting were found in 39% (24/61) pairwise comparisons and in 11 cases these were statistically significant; the FDA report showed greater benefit than the journal publication in 15 comparisons and lesser benefit in 9. Differences in the reported harms were found in 51% (28/55) pairwise comparisons and were statistically significant in 5. The "signal" in FDA reports showed a less harmful effect than the journal publication in 17 comparisons whereas a more harmful effect in 11. The differences were attributed to differences in analytic approach, patient inclusion, rounding effect, and counting discrepancies. However, no differences were categorized as critical.ConclusionThere was no empirical evidence to suggest biased estimates between the two sources. Increased and detailed transparency in publications would improve the understanding and credibility of published results. Further, the FDA report was found to be a useful source when data are missing in the published report (i.e. reporting bias).

Dataset Information

Crossmaps: visualization of overlapping relationships in collections of journal papers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets