ArticleBMC genomics2024
Interpretation knowledge extraction for genetic testing via question-answer model.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSequencing-based genetic testing is widely used in biomedical research, including pathogenic microorganism detection with metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS). The application of sequencing results to clinical diagnosis and treatment relies on various interpretation knowledge bases. Currently, the existing knowledge bases are primarily built through manual knowledge extraction. This method requires professionals to read extensive literature and extract relevant knowledge from it, which is time-consuming and costly. Furthermore, manual extraction unavoidably introduces subjective biases. In this study, we aimed to automatically extract knowledge for interpreting mNGS results.
methodWe propose a novel approach to automatically extract pathogenic microorganism knowledge based on the question-answer (QA) model. First, we construct a MicrobeDB dataset since there is no available pathogenic microorganism QA dataset for training the model. The created dataset contains 3,161 samples from 618 published papers covering 224 pathogenic microorganisms. Then, we fine-tune the selected baseline model based on MicrobeDB. Finally, we utilize ChatGPT to enhance the diversity of training data, and employ data expansion to increase training data volume.
resultsOur method achieves an Exact Match (EM) and F1 score of 88.39% and 93.18%, respectively, on the MicrobeDB test set. We also conduct ablation studies on the proposed data augmentation method. In addition, we perform comparative experiments with the ChatPDF tool based on the ChatGPT API to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
conclusionsOur method is effective and valuable for extracting pathogenic microorganism knowledge.
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.