Consumption of plant food supplements in the Netherlands.

The use of food supplements containing herbs or other botanical ingredients (plant food supplements, PFS) is on the rise. In some cases, PFS can contain compounds that are toxic and may pose a health risk. To assess the potential health risks, information on the consumption of PFS is required, however, this was lacking for the Netherlands. In the current study, the consumption of PFS was investigated for several subgroups in the Dutch population, including children. Data from the Dutch National Food Consumption Surveys were used to get a first impression on the consumption of PFS. To obtain more detailed information, a specific PFS consumption survey was performed using online questionnaires. First, a screening survey was performed among a representative sample of 75 100 adults and children of the Dutch population, followed by a main survey among 739 selected PFS users in eight different age and gender subgroups. The prevalence of PFS users in the Dutch population was approximately 10% for men, 17% for women and 13% for children. A wide variety of PFS was used, with around 600 different PFS reported, containing 345 different botanicals. The most frequently used botanicals were echinacea (Echinacea purpurea), ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba), cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), ginseng (Panax ginseng) and algae (such as species belonging to the genus Spirulina or Chlorella). Because PFS are widely used in the Dutch population, it is important to evaluate the potential risks associated with PFS consumption in the Netherlands, including potential herb-drug interactions. The data collected in this study are of great value to assess these risks

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

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