Assisting manual literature curation for protein-protein interactions using BioQRator
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The time-consuming nature of manual curation and the rapid growth of biomedical literature severely limit the number of articles that database curators can scrutinize and annotate. Hence, semi-automatic tools can be a valid support to increase annotation throughput. Although a handful of curation assistant tools are already available, to date, little has been done to formally evaluate their benefit to biocuration. Moreover, most curation tools are designed for specific problems. Thus, it is not easy to apply an annotation tool for multiple tasks. BioQRator is a publicly available web-based tool for annotating biomedical literature. It was designed to support general tasks, i.e. any task annotating entities and relationships. In the BioCreative IV edition, BioQRator was tailored for protein- protein interaction (PPI) annotation by migrating information from PIE the search. The results obtained from six curators showed that the precision on the top 10 documents doubled with PIE the search compared with PubMed search results. It was also observed that the annotation time for a full PPI annotation task decreased for a beginner-intermediate level annotator. This finding is encouraging because text-mining techniques were not directly involved in the full annotation task and BioQRator can be easily integrated with any text-mining resources. Database URL: http://www.bioqrator.org/.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it