13 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

    Get PDF
    The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

    MELD 3.0 adequately predicts mortality and renal replacement therapy requirements in patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis

    Get PDF
    Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score better predicts mortality in alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) but could underestimate severity in women and malnourished patients. Using a global cohort, we assessed the ability of the MELD 3.0 score to predict short-term mortality in AH. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to hospital with AH from 2009 to 2019. The main outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. We compared the AUC using DeLong's method and also performed a time-dependent AUC with competing risks analysis. A total of 2,124 patients were included from 28 centres from 10 countries on three continents (median age 47.2 ± 11.2 years, 29.9% women, 71.3% with underlying cirrhosis). The median MELD 3.0 score at admission was 25 (20-33), with an estimated survival of 73.7% at 30 days. The MELD 3.0 score had a better performance in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC:0.761, 95%CI:0.732-0.791) compared with MELD sodium (MELD-Na; AUC: 0.744, 95% CI: 0.713-0.775; p = 0.042) and Maddrey's discriminant function (mDF) (AUC: 0.724, 95% CI: 0.691-0.757; p = 0.013). However, MELD 3.0 did not perform better than traditional MELD (AUC: 0.753, 95% CI: 0.723-0.783; p = 0.300) and Age-Bilirubin-International Normalised Ratio-Creatinine (ABIC) (AUC:0.757, 95% CI: 0.727-0.788; p = 0.765). These results were consistent in competing-risk analysis, where MELD 3.0 (AUC: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.724-0.790) predicted better 30-day mortality compared with MELD-Na (AUC: 0.739, 95% CI: 0.708-0.770; p = 0.028) and mDF (AUC:0.717, 95% CI: 0.687-0.748; p = 0.042). The MELD 3.0 score was significantly better in predicting renal replacement therapy requirements during admission compared with the other scores (AUC: 0.844, 95% CI: 0.805-0.883). MELD 3.0 demonstrated better performance compared with MELD-Na and mDF in predicting 30-day and 90-day mortality, and was the best predictor of renal replacement therapy requirements during admission for AH. However, further prospective studies are needed to validate its extensive use in AH. Severe AH has high short-term mortality. The establishment of treatments and liver transplantation depends on mortality prediction. We evaluated the performance of the new MELD 3.0 score to predict short-term mortality in AH in a large global cohort. MELD 3.0 performed better in predicting 30- and 90-day mortality compared with MELD-Na and mDF, but was similar to MELD and ABIC scores. MELD 3.0 was the best predictor of renal replacement therapy requirements. Thus, further prospective studies are needed to support the wide use of MELD 3.0 in AH

    Daclatasvir combined with sofosbuvir or simeprevir in liver transplant recipients with severe recurrent hepatitis C infection

    No full text
    Daclatasvir (DCV) is a potent, pangenotypic nonstructural protein 5A inhibitor with demonstrated antiviral efficacy when combined with sofosbuvir (SOF) or simeprevir (SMV) with or without ribavirin (RBV) in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Herein, we report efficacy and safety data for DCV-based all-oral antiviral therapy in liver transplantation (LT) recipients with severe recurrent HCV. DCV at 60 mg/day was administered for up to 24 weeks as part of a compassionate use protocol. The study included 97 LT recipients with a mean age of 59.3 ± 8.2 years; 93% had genotype 1 HCV and 31% had biopsy-proven cirrhosis between the time of LT and the initiation of DCV. The mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 13.0 ± 6.0, and the proportion with Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) A/B/C was 51%/31%/12%, respectively. Mean HCV RNA at DCV initiation was 14.3 × 6 log10 IU/mL, and 37% had severe cholestatic HCV infection. Antiviral regimens were selected by the local investigator and included DCV+SOF (n = 77), DCV+SMV (n = 18), and DCV+SMV+SOF (n = 2); 35% overall received RBV. At the end of treatment (EOT) and 12 weeks after EOT, 88 (91%) and 84 (87%) patients, respectively, were HCV RNA negative or had levels/mL. CTP and MELD scores significantly improved between DCV-based treatment initiation and last contact. Three virological breakthroughs and 2 relapses occurred in patients treated with DCV+SMV with or without RBV. None of the 8 patient deaths (6 during and 2 after therapy) were attributed to therapy. In conclusion, DCV-based all-oral antiviral therapy was well tolerated and resulted in a high sustained virological response in LT recipients with severe recurrent HCV infection. Most treated patients experienced stabilization or improvement in their clinical status

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

    No full text

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

    No full text
    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
    corecore