MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005255873 · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-13-249

Quantitative biomedical annotation using medical subject heading over-representation profiles (MeSHOPs)

2012· article· en· W2005255873 on OpenAlexafffund
Warren Cheung, B. F. Francis Ouellette, Wyeth W. Wasserman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Bioinformatics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsComputer scienceControlled vocabularyAnnotationInformation retrievalVocabularyOntologyRepresentation (politics)Subject (documents)Set (abstract data type)Unified Medical Language SystemOpen Biomedical OntologiesVisualizationData scienceNatural language processingData miningArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebOntology alignment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: MEDLINE®/PubMed® indexes over 20 million biomedical articles, providing curated annotation of its contents using a controlled vocabulary known as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The MeSH vocabulary, developed over 50+ years, provides a broad coverage of topics across biomedical research. Distilling the essential biomedical themes for a topic of interest from the relevant literature is important to both understand the importance of related concepts and discover new relationships. RESULTS: We introduce a novel method for determining enriched curator-assigned MeSH annotations in a set of papers associated to a topic, such as a gene, an author or a disease. We generate MeSH Over-representation Profiles (MeSHOPs) to quantitatively summarize the annotations in a form convenient for further computational analysis and visualization. Based on a hypergeometric distribution of assigned terms, MeSHOPs statistically account for the prevalence of the associated biomedical annotation while highlighting unusually prevalent terms based on a specified background. MeSHOPs can be visualized using word clouds, providing a succinct quantitative graphical representation of the relative importance of terms. Using the publication dates of articles, MeSHOPs track changing patterns of annotation over time. Since MeSHOPs are quantitative vectors, MeSHOPs can be compared using standard techniques such as hierarchical clustering. The reliability of MeSHOP annotations is assessed based on the capacity to re-derive the subset of the Gene Ontology annotations with equivalent MeSH terms. CONCLUSIONS: MeSHOPs allows quantitative measurement of the degree of association between any entity and the annotated medical concepts, based directly on relevant primary literature. Comparison of MeSHOPs allows entities to be related based on shared medical themes in their literature. A web interface is provided for generating and visualizing MeSHOPs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0200.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC BioinformaticsSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207