The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Text mining for the biocuration workflow
Open accessAbstract
Molecular biology has become heavily dependent on biological knowledge encoded in expert curated biological databases. As the volume of biological literature increases, biocurators need help in keeping up with the literature; (semi-) automated aids for biocuration would seem to be an ideal application for natural language processing and text mining. However, to date, there have been few documented successes for improving biocuration throughput using text mining. Our initial investigations took place for the workshop on 'Text Mining for the BioCuration Workflow' at the third International Biocuration Conference (Berlin, 2009). We interviewed biocurators to obtain workflows from eight biological databases. This initial study revealed high-level commonalities, including (i) selection of documents for curation; (ii) indexing of documents with biologically relevant entities (e.g. genes); and (iii) detailed curation of specific relations (e.g. interactions); however, the detailed workflows also showed many variabilities. Following the workshop, we conducted a survey of biocurators. The survey identified biocurator priorities, including the handling of full text indexed with biological entities and support for the identification and prioritization of documents for curation. It also indicated that two-thirds of the biocuration teams had experimented with text mining and almost half were using text mining at that time. Analysis of our interviews and survey provide a set of requirements for the integration of text mining into the biocuration workflow. These can guide the identification of common needs across curated databases and encourage joint experimentation involving biocurators, text mining developers and the larger biomedical research community.
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
Cited by
PubTator central: automated concept annotation for biomedical full text articles
Wei, C.-H., Allot, A., Leaman, R., & Lu, Z. (2019) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkz389 · Cited by 400
Information retrieval and text mining technologies for chemistry
Krallinger, M., Rabal, O., Lourenço, A., Oyarzabal, J., & Valencia, A. (2017) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00851 · Cited by 281
Self-citationJin, Q., Kim, W., Chen, Q., Comeau, D. C., Yeganova, L., Wilbur, W. J., & Lu, Z. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad651 · Cited by 175
Pressing needs of biomedical text mining in biocuration and beyond: opportunities and challenges
Singhal, A., Leaman, R., Catlett, N., Lemberger, T., McEntyre, J., Polson, S., Xenarios, I., Arighi, C., & Lu, Z. (2016) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/baw161 · Cited by 48
Self-citationLee, K., Famiglietti, M. L., McMahon, A., Wei, C.-H., MacArthur, J. A. L., Poux, S., Breuza, L., Bridge, A., Cunningham, F., Xenarios, I., et al. (2018) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006390 · Cited by 47
Language models for materials discovery and sustainability: Progress, challenges, and opportunities
Pei, Z., Yin, J., & Zhang, J. (2025) · Progress in Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2025.101495 · Cited by 30
Gobeill, J., Caucheteur, D., Michel, P.-A., Mottin, L., Pasche, E., & Ruch, P. (2020) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkaa328 · Cited by 20
Ambert, K. H., Cohen, A. M., Burns, G. A. P. C., Boudreau, E., & Sonmez, K. (2013) · Frontiers in Neuroinformatics · doi:10.3389/fninf.2013.00038 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hirschman, L., Burns, G. A. P. C., Krallinger, M., Arighi, C., Cohen, K. B., Valencia, A., Wu, C. H., Chatr-Aryamontri, A., Dowell, K. G., Huala, E., Lourenco, A., Nash, R., Veuthey, A.-L., Wiegers, T., & Winter, A. G.
- Venue
- Database
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-04-18
- Volume
- 2012
- Issue
- 0
- Pages
- bas020-bas020
- ISSN
- 1758-0463 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2094726706
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.