A Corpus of Potentially Contradictory Research Claims from Cardiovascular Research Abstracts

Background: Research literature in biomedicine and related fields contains a huge number of claims, such as the effectiveness of treatments. These claims are not always consistent and may even contradict each other. Being able to identify contradictory claims is important for those who rely on the biomedical literature. Automated methods to identify and resolve them are required to cope with the amount of information available. However, research in this area has been hampered by a lack of suitable resources. We describe a methodology to develop a corpus which addresses this gap by providing examples of potentially contradictory claims and demonstrate how it can be applied to identify these claims from Medline abstracts related to the topic of cardiovascular disease. Methods A set of systematic reviews concerned with four topics in cardiovascular disease were identified from Medline and analysed to determine whether the abstracts they reviewed contained contradictory research claims. For each review, annotators were asked to analyse these abstracts to identify claims within them that answered the question addressed in the review. The annotators were also asked to indicate how the claim related to that question and the type of the claim. Results: A total of 259 abstracts associated with 24 systematic reviews were used to form the corpus. Agreement between the annotators was high, suggesting that the information they provided is reliable. Conclusions: The paper describes a methodology for constructing a corpus containing contradictory research claims from the biomedical literature. The corpus is made available to enable further research into this area and support the development of automated approaches to contradiction identification

The Detection of Contradictory Claims in Biomedical Abstracts

Research claims in the biomedical domain are not always consistent, and may even be contradictory. This thesis explores contradictions between research claims in order to determine whether or not it is possible to develop a solution to automate the detection of such phenomena. Such a solution will help decision-makers, including researchers, to alleviate the effects of contradictory claims on their decisions. This study develops two methodologies to construct corpora of contradictions. The first methodology utilises systematic reviews to construct a manually-annotated corpus of contradictions. The second methodology uses a different approach to construct a corpus of contradictions which does not rely on human annotation. This methodology is proposed to overcome the limitations of the manual annotation approach. Moreover, this thesis proposes a pipeline to detect contradictions in abstracts. The pipeline takes a question and a list of research abstracts which may contain answers to it. The output of the pipeline is a list of sentences extracted from abstracts which answer the question, where each sentence is annotated with an assertion value with respect to the question. Claims which feature opposing assertion values are considered as potentially contradictory claims. The research demonstrates that automating the detection of contradictory claims in research abstracts is a feasible problem

Unleashing the Potential of Argument Mining for IS Research: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

Argument mining (AM) represents the unique use of natural language processing (NLP) techniques to extract arguments from unstructured data automatically. Despite expanding on commonly used NLP techniques, such as sentiment analysis, AM has hardly been applied in information systems (IS) research yet. Consequentially, knowledge about the potentials for the usage of AM on IS use cases appears to be still limited. First, we introduce AM and its current usage in fields beyond IS. To address this research gap, we conducted a systematic literature review on IS literature to identify IS use cases that can potentially be extended with AM. We develop eleven text-based IS research topics that provide structure and context to the use cases and their AM potentials. Finally, we formulate a novel research agenda to guide both researchers and practitioners to design, compare and evaluate the use of AM for text-based applications and research streams in IS

A PRISMA-driven systematic mapping study on system assurance weakeners

Context: An assurance case is a structured hierarchy of claims aiming at demonstrating that a given mission-critical system supports specific requirements (e.g., safety, security, privacy). The presence of assurance weakeners (i.e., assurance deficits, logical fallacies) in assurance cases reflects insufficient evidence, knowledge, or gaps in reasoning. These weakeners can undermine confidence in assurance arguments, potentially hindering the verification of mission-critical system capabilities. Objectives: As a stepping stone for future research on assurance weakeners, we aim to initiate the first comprehensive systematic mapping study on this subject. Methods: We followed the well-established PRISMA 2020 and SEGRESS guidelines to conduct our systematic mapping study. We searched for primary studies in five digital libraries and focused on the 2012-2023 publication year range. Our selection criteria focused on studies addressing assurance weakeners at the modeling level, resulting in the inclusion of 39 primary studies in our systematic review. Results: Our systematic mapping study reports a taxonomy (map) that provides a uniform categorization of assurance weakeners and approaches proposed to manage them at the modeling level. Conclusion: Our study findings suggest that the SACM (Structured Assurance Case Metamodel) -- a standard specified by the OMG (Object Management Group) -- may be the best specification to capture structured arguments and reason about their potential assurance weakeners

Argument-based generation and explanation of recommendations

In the recommender systems literature, it has been shown that, in addition to improving system effectiveness, explaining recommendations may increase user satisfaction, trust, persuasion and loyalty. In general, explanations focus on the filtering algorithms or the users and items involved in the generation of recommendations. However, on certain domains that are rich on user-generated textual content, it would be valuable to provide justifications of recommendations according to arguments that are explicit, underlying or related with the data used by the systems, e.g., the reasons for customers' opinions in reviews of e-commerce sites, and the requests and claims in citizens' proposals and debates of e-participation platforms. In this context, there is a need and challenging task to automatically extract and exploit the arguments given for and against evaluated items. We thus advocate to focus not only on user preferences and item features, but also on associated arguments. In other words, we propose to not only consider what is said about items, but also why it is said. Hence, arguments would not only be part of the recommendation explanations, but could also be used by the recommendation algorithms themselves. To this end, in this thesis, we propose to use argument mining techniques and tools that allow retrieving and relating argumentative information from textual content, and investigate recommendation methods that exploit that information before, during and after their filtering processesThe author thanks his supervisor Iván Cantador for his valuable support and guidance in defining this thesis project. The work is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2019-108965GB-I00

An NLP Analysis of Health Advice Giving in the Medical Research Literature

Health advice – clinical and policy recommendations – plays a vital role in guiding medical practices and public health policies. Whether or not authors should give health advice in medical research publications is a controversial issue. The proponents of actionable research advocate for the more efficient and effective transmission of science evidence into practice. The opponents are concerned about the quality of health advice in individual research papers, especially that in observational studies. Arguments both for and against giving advice in individual studies indicate a strong need for identifying and accessing health advice, for either practical use or quality evaluation purposes. However, current information services do not support the direct retrieval of health advice. Compared to other natural language processing (NLP) applications, health advice has not been computationally modeled as a language construct either. A new information service for directly accessing health advice should be able to reduce information barriers and to provide external assessment in science communication. This dissertation work built an annotated corpus of scientific claims that distinguishes health advice according to its occurrence and strength. The study developed NLP-based prediction models to identify health advice in the PubMed literature. Using the annotated corpus and prediction models, the study answered research questions regarding the practice of advice giving in medical research literature. To test and demonstrate the potential use of the prediction model, it was used to retrieve health advice regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19 from LitCovid, a large COVID-19 research literature database curated by the National Institutes of Health. An evaluation of sentences extracted from both abstracts and discussions showed that BERT-based pre-trained language models performed well at detecting health advice. The health advice prediction model may be combined with existing health information service systems to provide more convenient navigation of a large volume of health literature. Findings from the study also show researchers are careful not to give advice solely in abstracts. They also tend to give weaker and non-specific advice in abstracts than in discussions. In addition, the study found that health advice has appeared consistently in the abstracts of observational studies over the past 25 years. In the sample, 41.2% of the studies offered health advice in their conclusions, which is lower than earlier estimations based on analyses of much smaller samples processed manually. In the abstracts of observational studies, journals with a lower impact are more likely to give health advice than those with a higher impact, suggesting the significance of the role of journals as gatekeepers of science communication. For the communities of natural language processing, information science, and public health, this work advances knowledge of the automated recognition of health advice in scientific literature. The corpus and code developed for the study have been made publicly available to facilitate future efforts in health advice retrieval and analysis. Furthermore, this study discusses the ways in which researchers give health advice in medical research articles, knowledge of which could be an essential step towards curbing potential exaggeration in the current global science communication. It also contributes to ongoing discussions of the integrity of scientific output. This study calls for caution in advice-giving in medical research literature, especially in abstracts alone. It also calls for open access to medical research publications, so that health researchers and practitioners can fully review the advice in scientific outputs and its implications. More evaluative strategies that can increase the overall quality of health advice in research articles are needed by journal editors and reviewers, given their gatekeeping role in science communication

The Arts of Persuasion in Science and Law: Conflicting Norms in the Courtroom

Epistemology is important in the debate about science and technology in the courtroom. The epistemological issues and the arguments about them in the context of scientific and technical evidence are now well developed. Of equal importance, though, is an understanding of norms of persuasion and how those norms may differ across disciplines and groups. Norms of persuasion in the courtroom and in legal briefs differ from norms at a scientific conference and in scientific journals. Here, Kritzer examines the disconnect between science and the courtroom in terms of the differing norms of persuasion found within the scientific community and within the legal community

Evidence Reversal: An exploratory analysis of randomized controlled trials from the New England Journal of Medicine

BACKGROUND: Evidence Reversal (ER) is the phenomenon whereby new and stronger evidence contradicts previously established evidence. OBJECTIVES: To quantify evidence reversals and to determine characteristics associated with reversibility. METHODS: Original articles from the New England Journal of Medicine (2000 to 2016) were screened for three inclusion criteria: tested a clinical practice; Randomized Controlled Trial design; and tested an established clinical practice. The proportion of RCTs that represented ER was determined. Association of trial characteristics with reversal was explored using logistic regression in order to inform a potential framework of reversibility. RESULTS: In total, 611 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which 54% were evidence reversals. Based on variables associated with ER, a reversibility framework was proposed, comprised of eight trial characteristics. CONCLUSION: More than 50% of RCTs published in the NEJM that test established practices are evidence reversals. The characteristics of RCTs that are associated with reversal will inform future research to further understand reversibility