Cited by 52Text and Document Classification TechnologiesAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

PDF text classification to leverage information extraction from publication reports

Open access
Bui, Duy Duc An, Del Fiol, Guilherme, Jonnalagadda, Siddhartha·2016·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Data extraction from original study reports is a time-consuming, error-prone process in systematic review development. Information extraction (IE) systems have the potential to assist humans in the extraction task, however majority of IE systems were not designed to work on Portable Document Format (PDF) document, an important and common extraction source for systematic review. In a PDF document, narrative content is often mixed with publication metadata or semi-structured text, which add challenges to the underlining natural language processing algorithm. Our goal is to categorize PDF texts for strategic use by IE systems. METHODS: We used an open-source tool to extract raw texts from a PDF document and developed a text classification algorithm that follows a multi-pass sieve framework to automatically classify PDF text snippets (for brevity, texts) into TITLE, ABSTRACT, BODYTEXT, SEMISTRUCTURE, and METADATA categories. To validate the algorithm, we developed a gold standard of PDF reports that were included in the development of previous systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration. In a two-step procedure, we evaluated (1) classification performance, and compared it with machine learning classifier, and (2) the effects of the algorithm on an IE system that extracts clinical outcome mentions. RESULTS: The multi-pass sieve algorithm achieved an accuracy of 92.6%, which was 9.7% (p<0.001) higher than the best performing machine learning classifier that used a logistic regression algorithm. F-measure improvements were observed in the classification of TITLE (+15.6%), ABSTRACT (+54.2%), BODYTEXT (+3.7%), SEMISTRUCTURE (+34%), and MEDADATA (+14.2%). In addition, use of the algorithm to filter semi-structured texts and publication metadata improved performance of the outcome extraction system (F-measure +4.1%, p=0.002). It also reduced of number of sentences to be processed by 44.9% (p<0.001), which corresponds to a processing time reduction of 50% (p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The rule-based multi-pass sieve framework can be used effectively in categorizing texts extracted from PDF documents. Text classification is an important prerequisite step to leverage information extraction from PDF documents.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.03.026

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two of the 2016 publications were from the same authors and aimed at the automation of Data Extraction (SLR8).

    “Out of these publications, two were from the same authors who aimed at the automation of Data Extraction (SLR8) in the systematic review process [34,35].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [8]Higgins JP Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2008 Wiley Online Library
  2. [24]Constantin A Pettifer S Voronkov A PDFX: fully-automated PDF-to-XML conversion of scientific literature. Proceedings of the 2013 ACM symposium on Document engineering 2013 ACM
  3. [50]Tong S Koller D Restricted bayes optimal classifiers 2000 AAAI/IAAI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bui, D. D. A., Del Fiol, G., & Jonnalagadda, S.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Bui, Duy Duc An
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
61
Pages
141-148
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2316779280
Cited by
52
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Library of Medicine (R00LM011389, R01LM011416-01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
information extraction, systematic reviews, semi-structured text, bibliographic metadata, PDF text extraction
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Publications, Review Literature as Topic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Narration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review