PESCADOR, a web-based tool to assist text-mining of biointeractions extracted from PubMed queries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biological function is greatly dependent on the interactions of proteins with other proteins and genes. Abstracts from the biomedical literature stored in the NCBI's PubMed database can be used for the derivation of interactions between genes and proteins by identifying the co-occurrences of their terms. Often, the amount of interactions obtained through such an approach is large and may mix processes occurring in different contexts. Current tools do not allow studying these data with a focus on concepts of relevance to a user, for example, interactions related to a disease or to a biological mechanism such as protein aggregation. RESULTS: To help the concept-oriented exploration of such data we developed PESCADOR, a web tool that extracts a network of interactions from a set of PubMed abstracts given by a user, and allows filtering the interaction network according to user-defined concepts. We illustrate its use in exploring protein aggregation in neurodegenerative disease and in the expansion of pathways associated to colon cancer. CONCLUSIONS: PESCADOR is a platform independent web resource available at: http://cbdm.mdc-berlin.de/tools/pescador/
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".