Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39331731›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2024

Automated annotation of scientific texts for ML-based keyphrase extraction and validation.

Oluwamayowa O Amusat, Harshad Hegde, Christopher J Mungall, Anna Giannakou, Neil P Byers, Dan Gunter, Kjiersten Fagnan, Lavanya Ramakrishnan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Oluwamayowa O AmusatScientific Data Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4569-5729
Harshad HegdeDivision of Environmental Genomics and Systems Biology, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.
Christopher J MungallDivision of Environmental Genomics and Systems Biology, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6601-2165
Anna GiannakouScientific Data Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.
Neil P ByersDOE Joint Genome Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.
Dan GunterScientific Data Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.
Kjiersten FagnanDOE Joint Genome Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.
Lavanya RamakrishnanScientific Data Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advanced omics technologies and facilities generate a wealth of valuable data daily; however, the data often lack the essential metadata required for researchers to find, curate, and search them effectively. The lack of metadata poses a significant challenge in the utilization of these data sets. Machine learning (ML)-based metadata extraction techniques have emerged as a potentially viable approach to automatically annotating scientific data sets with the metadata necessary for enabling effective search. Text labeling, usually performed manually, plays a crucial role in validating machine-extracted metadata. However, manual labeling is time-consuming and not always feasible; thus, there is a need to develop automated text labeling techniques in order to accelerate the process of scientific innovation. This need is particularly urgent in fields such as environmental genomics and microbiome science, which have historically received less attention in terms of metadata curation and creation of gold-standard text mining data sets. In this paper, we present two novel automated text labeling approaches for the validation of ML-generated metadata for unlabeled texts, with specific applications in environmental genomics. Our techniques show the potential of two new ways to leverage existing information that is only available for select documents within a corpus to validate ML models, which can then be used to describe the remaining documents in the corpus. The first technique exploits relationships between different types of data sources related to the same research study, such as publications and proposals. The second technique takes advantage of domain-specific controlled vocabularies or ontologies. In this paper, we detail applying these approaches in the context of environmental genomics research for ML-generated metadata validation. Our results show that the proposed label assignment approaches can generate both generic and highly specific text labels for the unlabeled texts, with up to 44% of the labels matching with those suggested by a ML keyword extraction algorithm.

Indexed as

Data CurationData MiningMachine LearningMetadata

Identifiers

PMID39331731
PMCPMC11959184

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.