Cited by 6Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesText and Document Classification TechnologiesMachine Learning in Healthcare

Using deep learning to identify translational research in genomic medicine beyond bench to bedside

Open access
Hsu, Yi-Yu, Clyne, Mindy, Wei, Chih-Hsuan, Khoury, Muin J, Lu, Zhiyong·2019·Database

Abstract

Tracking scientific research publications on the evaluation, utility and implementation of genomic applications is critical for the translation of basic research to impact clinical and population health. In this work, we utilize state-of-the-art machine learning approaches to identify translational research in genomics beyond bench to bedside from the biomedical literature. We apply the convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and support vector machines (SVMs) to the bench/bedside article classification on the weekly manual annotation data of the Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base database. Both classifiers employ salient features to determine the probability of curation-eligible publications, which can effectively reduce the workload of manual triage and curation process. We applied the CNNs and SVMs to an independent test set (n = 400), and the models achieved the F-measure of 0.80 and 0.74, respectively. We further tested the CNNs, which perform better results, on the routine annotation pipeline for 2 weeks and significantly reduced the effort and retrieved more appropriate research articles. Our approaches provide direct insight into the automated curation of genomic translational research beyond bench to bedside. The machine learning classifiers are found to be helpful for annotators to enhance the efficiency of manual curation.

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 · 10.1093/database/baz010

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Several computational methods have been proposed as an effective alternative to keyword-based query methods for literature recommendation.

    “Several computational methods have been proposed as an effective alternative to keyword-based query methods for literature recommendation.”

    From LitSuggest: a web-based system for literature recommendation and curation using machine learning (2021) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction and Utility assessment (pages not specified) describe computational methods for classifying and prioritizing relevant articles. They do not establish these methods as alternatives to keyword-based queries: in the assessed workflow, PubMed queries still retrieve articles, and the classifier ranks the results for review. The paper also concerns genomic-research curation rather than literature recommendation generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hsu, Y.-Y., Clyne, M., Wei, C.-H., Khoury, M. J., & Lu, Z.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
  • Khoury, Muin J
  • Lu, Zhiyong
Venue
Database
Published
2019-01-01
Volume
2019
ISSN
1758-0463 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914293296
Cited by
6
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Database (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Intramural Research Programs of the National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
translational research, genomic medicine, bench-to-bedside, public health genomics, convolutional neural networks, support vector machine, annotation workload reduction
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, ROC Curve, Statistics as Topic, Task Performance and Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Neural Networks, Computer, Genomics, Translational Research, Biomedical, Support Vector Machine

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