Cited by 96Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesGenomics and Rare Diseases

Text mining genotype-phenotype relationships from biomedical literature for database curation and precision medicine

Open access
Singhal, Ayush, Simmons, Michael, Lu, Zhiyong·2016·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

The practice of precision medicine will ultimately require databases of genes and mutations for healthcare providers to reference in order to understand the clinical implications of each patient's genetic makeup. Although the highest quality databases require manual curation, text mining tools can facilitate the curation process, increasing accuracy, coverage, and productivity. However, to date there are no available text mining tools that offer high-accuracy performance for extracting such triplets from biomedical literature. In this paper we propose a high-performance machine learning approach to automate the extraction of disease-gene-variant triplets from biomedical literature. Our approach is unique because we identify the genes and protein products associated with each mutation from not just the local text content, but from a global context as well (from the Internet and from all literature in PubMed). Our approach also incorporates protein sequence validation and disease association using a novel text-mining-based machine learning approach. We extract disease-gene-variant triplets from all abstracts in PubMed related to a set of ten important diseases (breast cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, acute myeloid leukemia, Alzheimer's disease, hemochromatosis, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetes mellitus, and cystic fibrosis). We then evaluate our approach in two ways: (1) a direct comparison with the state of the art using benchmark datasets; (2) a validation study comparing the results of our approach with entries in a popular human-curated database (UniProt) for each of the previously mentioned diseases. In the benchmark comparison, our full approach achieves a 28% improvement in F1-measure (from 0.62 to 0.79) over the state-of-the-art results. For the validation study with UniProt Knowledgebase (KB), we present a thorough analysis of the results and errors. Across all diseases, our approach returned 272 triplets (disease-gene-variant) that overlapped with entries in UniProt and 5,384 triplets without overlap in UniProt. Analysis of the overlapping triplets and of a stratified sample of the non-overlapping triplets revealed accuracies of 93% and 80% for the respective categories (cumulative accuracy, 77%). We conclude that our process represents an important and broadly applicable improvement to the state of the art for curation of disease-gene-variant relationships.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005017

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Patient clinical and omics data, as part of health-related big data, is now more widely accessible.

    “Health-based big data including linked information for patients, such as their clinical data (for example gender, age, pathological and physiological history) and omics data (such as genetics, proteomics and metabolomics) has now become more widely available (Canuel et al., 2015;Singhal et al., 2016).”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Singhal et al., 2016

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
Singhal, A., Simmons, M., & Lu, Z.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Lu, Zhiyong
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2016-11-30
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
e1005017
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2559034752
Cited by
96
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 2
FWCI
7.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  • Colgate-Palmolive Company
  • American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. 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 › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
genotype-phenotype correlation, biomedical text mining, database curation, precision medicine, gene-disease association, PubMed abstracts, cancer genes, genetic variants
MeSH terms
Database Management Systems, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Periodicals as Topic, Genome, Human, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Databases, Genetic, Data Mining, Precision Medicine, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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