ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
Extract antibody and antigen names from biomedical literature.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe roles of antibody and antigen are indispensable in targeted diagnosis, therapy, and biomedical discovery. On top of that, massive numbers of new scientific articles about antibodies and/or antigens are published each year, which is a precious knowledge resource but has yet been exploited to its full potential. We, therefore, aim to develop a biomedical natural language processing tool that can automatically identify antibody and antigen entities from articles.
resultsWe first annotated an antibody-antigen corpus including 3210 relevant PubMed abstracts using a semi-automatic approach. The Inter-Annotator Agreement score of 3 annotators ranges from 91.46 to 94.31%, indicating that the annotations are consistent and the corpus is reliable. We then used the corpus to develop and optimize BiLSTM-CRF-based and BioBERT-based models. The models achieved overall F1 scores of 62.49% and 81.44%, respectively, which showed potential for newly studied entities. The two models served as foundation for development of a named entity recognition (NER) tool that automatically recognizes antibody and antigen names from biomedical literature.
conclusionsOur antibody-antigen NER models enable users to automatically extract antibody and antigen names from scientific articles without manually scanning through vast amounts of data and information in the literature. The output of NER can be used to automatically populate antibody-antigen databases, support antibody validation, and facilitate researchers with the most appropriate antibodies of interest. The packaged NER model is available at https://github.com/TrangDinh44/ABAG_BioBERT.git .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.