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

Porcine-Derived Xenograft Combined with a Soft Cortical Membrane versus Extraction Alone for Implant Site Development: A Clinical Study in Humans.

Background: An adequate alveolar crest is essential for implant placement in terms of esthetics and function. The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the preservation of the alveolar ridge dimensions following tooth extraction using porcine-derived xenograft combined with a membrane versus extraction-alone (EXT) sites. Methods: Fifteen patients who required double extraction of contralateral premolars and delayed implant placement were randomly selected to receive both ridge-preservation procedure and EXT. The test sites (alveolar ridge preservation [ARP]) included 15 sockets treated using a corticocancellous porcine bone xenograft (OsteoBiol® Gen-Os; Tecnoss srl, Giaveno, Italy) associated with a soft cortical membrane (OsteoBiol® Lamina; Tecnoss srl), while the corresponding control sites (EXT) were left without grafting for EXT. Horizontal and vertical ridge dimensions were recorded at baseline and 6 months after extractions. Results: After 6 months, the EXT sites showed a significantly greater reabsorption of the buccolingual/palatal dimension of the alveolar ridge (3.7 ± 1.2 mm) compared with the ARP sites (1.8 ± 1.3 mm). The mean vertical ridge height reduction in the control sockets was 3.1 ± 1.3 mm at the buccal sites and 2.4 ± 1.6 mm at the lingual sites compared with 0.6 ± 1.4 and 0.5 ± 1.3 mm, respectively, in the test sockets. The differences between test and control sockets were not significant for the mesial and distal measurements. Conclusions: The placement of a porcine xenograft with a membrane in an extraction socket can be used to reduce the hard tissue reabsorption after tooth extraction compared with EXT.Background: An adequate alveolar crest is essential for implant placement in terms of esthetics and function. The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the preservation of the alveolar ridge dimensions following tooth extraction using porcine-derived xenograft combined with a membrane versus extraction-alone (EXT) sites. Methods: Fifteen patients who required double extraction of contralateral premolars and delayed implant placement were randomly selected to receive both ridge-preservation procedure and EXT. The test sites (alveolar ridge preservation [ARP]) included 15 sockets treated using a corticocancellous porcine bone xenograft (OsteoBiol® Gen-Os; Tecnoss srl, Giaveno, Italy) associated with a soft cortical membrane (OsteoBiol® Lamina; Tecnoss srl), while the corresponding control sites (EXT) were left without grafting for EXT. Horizontal and vertical ridge dimensions were recorded at baseline and 6 months after extractions. Results: After 6 months, the EXT sites showed a significantly greater reabsorption of the buccolingual/palatal dimension of the alveolar ridge (3.7±1.2mm) compared with the ARP sites (1.8±1.3mm). The mean vertical ridge height reduction in the control sockets was 3.1±1.3mm at the buccal sites and 2.4±1.6mm at the lingual sites compared with 0.6±1.4 and 0.5±1.3mm, respectively, in the test sockets. The differences between test and control sockets were not significant for the mesial and distal measurements. Conclusions: The placement of a porcine xenograft with a membrane in an extraction socket can be used to reduce the hard tissue reabsorption after tooth extraction compared with EXT. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc