The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Extracting human protein interactions from MEDLINE using a full-sentence parser
Open accessAbstract
Motivation: The living cell is a complex machine that depends on the proper functioning of its numerous parts, including proteins. Understanding protein functions and how they modify and regulate each other is the next great challenge for life-sciences researchers. The collective knowledge about protein functions and pathways is scattered throughout numerous publications in scientific journals. Bringing the relevant information together becomes a bottleneck in a research and discovery process. The volume of such information grows exponentially, which renders manual curation impractical. As a viable alternative, automated literature processing tools could be employed to extract and organize biological data into a knowledge base, making it amenable to computational analysis and data mining. Results: We present MedScan, a completely automated natural language processing-based information extraction system. We have used MedScan to extract 2976 interactions between human proteins from MEDLINE abstracts dated after 1988. The precision of the extracted information was found to be 91%. Comparison with the existing protein interaction databases BIND and DIP revealed that 96% of extracted information is novel. The recall rate of MedScan was found to be 21%. Additional experiments with MedScan suggest that MEDLINE is a unique source of diverse protein function information, which can be extracted in a completely automated way with a reasonably high precision. Further directions of the MedScan technology improvement are discussed. Availability: MedScan is available for commercial licensing from Ariadne Genomics, Inc.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
MedScan, a natural language processing engine for MEDLINE abstracts
Novichkova, S., Egorov, S., & Daraselia, N. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg207 · Cited by 236
Self-citation
Cited by
Literature mining for the biologist: from information retrieval to biological discovery
Jensen, L. J., Saric, J., & Bork, P. (2006) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1768 · Cited by 631
BioInfer: a corpus for information extraction in the biomedical domain
Pyysalo, S., Ginter, F., Heimonen, J., Björne, J., Boberg, J., Järvinen, J., & Salakoski, T. (2007) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-50 · Cited by 485
Corpus annotation for mining biomedical events from literature
Kim, J.-D., Ohta, T., & Tsujii, J. (2008) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-10 · Cited by 395
Text mining and its potential applications in systems biology
Ananiadou, S., Kell, D. B., & Tsujii, J.-I. (2006) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.10.002 · Cited by 324
Text mining and ontologies in biomedicine: Making sense of raw text
Spasic, I., Ananiadou, S., McNaught, J., & Kumar, A. (2005) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/6.3.239 · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Daraselia, N., Yuryev, A., Egorov, S., Novichkova, S., Nikitin, A., & Mazo, I.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-01-22
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 604-611
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2160238006
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extracting human protein interactions from MEDLINE using a full-sentence parser. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg452
- The paper
- Daraselia, N., Yuryev, A., Egorov, S., Novichkova, S., Nikitin, A., & Mazo, I. (2004). Extracting human protein interactions from MEDLINE using a full-sentence parser. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg452
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.