Chi-square-based scoring function for categorization of MEDLINE citations

Objectives: Text categorization has been used in biomedical informatics for identifying documents containing relevant topics of interest. We developed a simple method that uses a chi-square-based scoring function to determine the likelihood of MEDLINE citations containing genetic relevant topic. Methods: Our procedure requires construction of a genetic and a nongenetic domain document corpus. We used MeSH descriptors assigned to MEDLINE citations for this categorization task. We compared frequencies of MeSH descriptors between two corpora applying chi-square test. A MeSH descriptor was considered to be a positive indicator if its relative observed frequency in the genetic domain corpus was greater than its relative observed frequency in the nongenetic domain corpus. The output of the proposed method is a list of scores for all the citations, with the highest score given to those citations containing MeSH descriptors typical for the genetic domain. Results: Validation was done on a set of 734 manually annotated MEDLINE citations. It achieved predictive accuracy of 0.87 with 0.69 recall and 0.64 precision. We evaluated the method by comparing it to three machine learning algorithms (support vector machines, decision trees, na\"ive Bayes). Although the differences were not statistically significantly different, results showed that our chi-square scoring performs as good as compared machine learning algorithms. Conclusions: We suggest that the chi-square scoring is an effective solution to help categorize MEDLINE citations. The algorithm is implemented in the BITOLA literature-based discovery support system as a preprocessor for gene symbol disambiguation process.Comment: 34 pages, 2 figure

The devices, experimental scaffolds, and biomaterials ontology (DEB): a tool for mapping, annotation, and analysis of biomaterials' data

The size and complexity of the biomaterials literature makes systematic data analysis an excruciating manual task. A practical solution is creating databases and information resources. Implant design and biomaterials research can greatly benefit from an open database for systematic data retrieval. Ontologies are pivotal to knowledge base creation, serving to represent and organize domain knowledge. To name but two examples, GO, the gene ontology, and CheBI, Chemical Entities of Biological Interest ontology and their associated databases are central resources to their respective research communities. The creation of the devices, experimental scaffolds, and biomaterials ontology (DEB), an open resource for organizing information about biomaterials, their design, manufacture, and biological testing, is described. It is developed using text analysis for identifying ontology terms from a biomaterials gold standard corpus, systematically curated to represent the domain's lexicon. Topics covered are validated by members of the biomaterials research community. The ontology may be used for searching terms, performing annotations for machine learning applications, standardized meta-data indexing, and other cross-disciplinary data exploitation. The input of the biomaterials community to this effort to create data-driven open-access research tools is encouraged and welcomed.Preprin

Using Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing to Review and Classify the Medical Literature on Cancer Susceptibility Genes

PURPOSE: The medical literature relevant to germline genetics is growing exponentially. Clinicians need tools monitoring and prioritizing the literature to understand the clinical implications of the pathogenic genetic variants. We developed and evaluated two machine learning models to classify abstracts as relevant to the penetrance (risk of cancer for germline mutation carriers) or prevalence of germline genetic mutations. METHODS: We conducted literature searches in PubMed and retrieved paper titles and abstracts to create an annotated dataset for training and evaluating the two machine learning classification models. Our first model is a support vector machine (SVM) which learns a linear decision rule based on the bag-of-ngrams representation of each title and abstract. Our second model is a convolutional neural network (CNN) which learns a complex nonlinear decision rule based on the raw title and abstract. We evaluated the performance of the two models on the classification of papers as relevant to penetrance or prevalence. RESULTS: For penetrance classification, we annotated 3740 paper titles and abstracts and used 60% for training the model, 20% for tuning the model, and 20% for evaluating the model. The SVM model achieves 89.53% accuracy (percentage of papers that were correctly classified) while the CNN model achieves 88.95 % accuracy. For prevalence classification, we annotated 3753 paper titles and abstracts. The SVM model achieves 89.14% accuracy while the CNN model achieves 89.13 % accuracy. CONCLUSION: Our models achieve high accuracy in classifying abstracts as relevant to penetrance or prevalence. By facilitating literature review, this tool could help clinicians and researchers keep abreast of the burgeoning knowledge of gene-cancer associations and keep the knowledge bases for clinical decision support tools up to date

Improving average ranking precision in user searches for biomedical research datasets

Availability of research datasets is keystone for health and life science study reproducibility and scientific progress. Due to the heterogeneity and complexity of these data, a main challenge to be overcome by research data management systems is to provide users with the best answers for their search queries. In the context of the 2016 bioCADDIE Dataset Retrieval Challenge, we investigate a novel ranking pipeline to improve the search of datasets used in biomedical experiments. Our system comprises a query expansion model based on word embeddings, a similarity measure algorithm that takes into consideration the relevance of the query terms, and a dataset categorisation method that boosts the rank of datasets matching query constraints. The system was evaluated using a corpus with 800k datasets and 21 annotated user queries. Our system provides competitive results when compared to the other challenge participants. In the official run, it achieved the highest infAP among the participants, being +22.3% higher than the median infAP of the participant's best submissions. Overall, it is ranked at top 2 if an aggregated metric using the best official measures per participant is considered. The query expansion method showed positive impact on the system's performance increasing our baseline up to +5.0% and +3.4% for the infAP and infNDCG metrics, respectively. Our similarity measure algorithm seems to be robust, in particular compared to Divergence From Randomness framework, having smaller performance variations under different training conditions. Finally, the result categorization did not have significant impact on the system's performance. We believe that our solution could be used to enhance biomedical dataset management systems. In particular, the use of data driven query expansion methods could be an alternative to the complexity of biomedical terminologies

Do peers see more in a paper than its authors?

Recent years have shown a gradual shift in the content of biomedical publications that is freely accessible, from titles and abstracts to full text. This has enabled new forms of automatic text analysis and has given rise to some interesting questions: How informative is the abstract compared to the full-text? What important information in the full-text is not present in the abstract? What should a good summary contain that is not already in the abstract? Do authors and peers see an article differently? We answer these questions by comparing the information content of the abstract to that in citances-sentences containing citations to that article. We contrast the important points of an article as judged by its authors versus as seen by peers. Focusing on the area of molecular interactions, we perform manual and automatic analysis, and we find that the set of all citances to a target article not only covers most information (entities, functions, experimental methods, and other biological concepts) found in its abstract, but also contains 20% more concepts. We further present a detailed summary of the differences across information types, and we examine the effects other citations and time have on the content of citances