The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Getting More Out of Biomedical Documents with GATE's Full Lifecycle Open Source Text Analytics
Open accessAbstract
This software article describes the GATE family of open source text analysis tools and processes. GATE is one of the most widely used systems of its type with yearly download rates of tens of thousands and many active users in both academic and industrial contexts. In this paper we report three examples of GATE-based systems operating in the life sciences and in medicine. First, in genome-wide association studies which have contributed to discovery of a head and neck cancer mutation association. Second, medical records analysis which has significantly increased the statistical power of treatment/outcome models in the UK's largest psychiatric patient cohort. Third, richer constructs in drug-related searching. We also explore the ways in which the GATE family supports the various stages of the lifecycle present in our examples. We conclude that the deployment of text mining for document abstraction or rich search and navigation is best thought of as a process, and that with the right computational tools and data collection strategies this process can be made defined and repeatable. The GATE research programme is now 20 years old and has grown from its roots as a specialist development tool for text processing to become a rather comprehensive ecosystem, bringing together software developers, language engineers and research staff from diverse fields. GATE now has a strong claim to cover a uniquely wide range of the lifecycle of text analysis systems. It forms a focal point for the integration and reuse of advances that have been made by many people (the majority outside of the authors' own group) who work in text processing for biomedicine and other areas. GATE is available online <1> under GNU open source licences and runs on all major operating systems. Support is available from an active user and developer community and also on a commercial basis.
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
Introduction to information retrieval
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2715 · Cited by 12,278
Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls
The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, Management Committee, Burton, P. R., Clayton, D. G., Cardon, L. R., Craddock, N., Deloukas, P., Duncanson, A., Kwiatkowski, D. P., McCarthy, M. I., et al. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05911 · Cited by 9,442
Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations
Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2002) · ACM SIGMOD Record · doi:10.1145/507338.507355 · Cited by 5,137
Linked Data - The Story So Far
Bizer, C., Heath, T., & Berners-Lee, T. (2009) · International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems · doi:10.4018/jswis.2009081901 · Cited by 4,525
Raymond, E. (1999) · Knowledge, Technology & Policy · doi:10.1007/s12130-999-1026-0 · Cited by 2,915
Genome-wide association studies for common diseases and complex traits
Hirschhorn, J. N., & Daly, M. J. (2005) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1521 · Cited by 2,863
White, T. (2009) · Cited by 2,800
The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, U.K.
Mossman, K. (2008) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0108-42a · Cited by 2,684
An overview of MetaMap: historical perspective and recent advances
Aronson, A. R., & Lang, F.-M. (2010) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2009.002733 · Cited by 1,519
FERRUCCI, D., & LALLY, A. (2004) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s1351324904003523 · Cited by 884
Cited by
Clinical information extraction applications: A literature review
Wang, Y., Wang, L., Rastegar-Mojarad, M., Moon, S., Shen, F., Afzal, N., Liu, S., Zeng, Y., Mehrabi, S., Sohn, S., et al. (2018) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2017.11.011 · Cited by 910
Kreimeyer, K., Foster, M., Pandey, A., Arya, N., Halford, G., Jones, S. F., Forshee, R., Walderhaug, M., & Botsis, T. (2017) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2017.07.012 · Cited by 616
Text mining applications in psychiatry: a systematic literature review
Abbe, A., Grouin, C., Zweigenbaum, P., & Falissard, B. (2016) · International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1002/mpr.1481 · Cited by 130
Osimo, E. F., Cardinal, R. N., Jones, P. B., & Khandaker, G. M. (2018) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.02.031 · Cited by 124
Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models
Flórez-Vargas, O., Brass, A., Karystianis, G., Bramhall, M., Stevens, R., Cruickshank, S., & Nenadic, G. (2016) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.13615 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Cunningham, H., Tablan, V., Roberts, A., & Bontcheva, K.
- Venue
- PLoS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-02-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e1002854
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- OpenAlex
- W2040298842
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 12.78
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Getting More Out of Biomedical Documents with GATE's Full Lifecycle Open Source Text Analytics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002854
- The paper
- Cunningham, H., Tablan, V., Roberts, A., & Bontcheva, K. (2013). Getting More Out of Biomedical Documents with GATE's Full Lifecycle Open Source Text Analytics. PLoS Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002854
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.