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

Do generalized visual training programmes for sport really work? An experimental investigation

We assessed the effectiveness of two generalized visual training programmes in enhancing visual and motor performance for racquet sports. Forty young participants were assigned equally to groups undertaking visual training using Revien and Gabor's Sports Vision programme (Group 1), visual training using Revien's Eyerobics (Group 2), a placebo condition involving reading (Group 3) and a control condition involving physical practice only (Group 4). Measures of basic visual function and of sport-specific motor performance were obtained from all participants before and immediately after a 4-week training period. Significant pre- to post-training differences were evident on some of the measures; however, these were not group-dependent. Contrary to the claims made by proponents of generalized visual training, we found no evidence that the visual training programmes led to improvements in either vision or motor performance above and beyond those resulting simply from test familiarity