Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

The EADC-ADNI Harmonized Protocol for manual hippocampal segmentation on magnetic resonance: Evidence of validity

BackgroundAn international Delphi panel has defined a harmonized protocol (HarP) for the manual segmentation of the hippocampus on MR. The aim of this study is to study the concurrent validity of the HarP toward local protocols, and its major sources of variance.MethodsFourteen tracers segmented 10 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cases scanned at 1.5 T and 3T following local protocols, qualified for segmentation based on the HarP through a standard web-platform and resegmented following the HarP. The five most accurate tracers followed the HarP to segment 15 ADNI cases acquired at three time points on both 1.5 T and 3T.ResultsThe agreement among tracers was relatively low with the local protocols (absolute left/right ICC 0.44/0.43) and much higher with the HarP (absolute left/right ICC 0.88/0.89). On the larger set of 15 cases, the HarP agreement within (left/right ICC range: 0.94/0.95 to 0.99/0.99) and among tracers (left/right ICC range: 0.89/0.90) was very high. The volume variance due to different tracers was 0.9% of the total, comparing favorably to variance due to scanner manufacturer (1.2), atrophy rates (3.5), hemispheric asymmetry (3.7), field strength (4.4), and significantly smaller than the variance due to atrophy (33.5%, P < .001), and physiological variability (49.2%, P < .001).ConclusionsThe HarP has high measurement stability compared with local segmentation protocols, and good reproducibility within and among human tracers. Hippocampi segmented with the HarP can be used as a reference for the qualification of human tracers and automated segmentation algorithms

Long-term survival of patients with CLL after allogeneic transplantation: A report from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Even with the availability of targeted drugs, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is the only therapy with curative potential for patients with CLL. Cure can be assessed by comparing long-term survival of patients to the matched general population. Using data from 2589 patients who received allo-HCT between 2000 and 2010, we used landmark analyses and methods from relative survival analysis to calculate excess mortality compared with an age-, sex- and calendar year-matched general population. Estimated event-free survival, overall survival and non-relapse mortality (NRM) 10 years after allo-HCT were 28% (95% confidence interval (CI), 25-31), 35% (95% CI, 32-38) and 40% (95% CI, 37-42), respectively. Patients who passed the 5-year landmark event-free survival (N=394) had a 79% probability (95% CI, 73-85) of surviving the subsequent 5 years without an event. Relapse and NRM contributed equally to treatment failure. Five-year mortality for 45- and 65-year-old reference patients who were event-free at the 5-year landmark was 8% and 47% compared with 3% and 14% in the matched general population, respectively. The prospect of long-term disease-free survival remains an argument to consider allo-HCT for young patients with high-risk CLL, and programs to understand and prevent late causes of failure for long-term survivors are warranted, especially for older patients

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical science. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press