The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unlocking the Power of Deep PICO Extraction: Step-wise Medical NER Identification
Open accessAbstract
The PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) is usually used to formulate evidence in the medical domain. The major task of PICO extraction is to extract sentences from medical literature and classify them into each class. However, in most circumstances, there will be more than one evidences in an extracted sentence even it has been categorized to a certain class. In order to address this problem, we propose a step-wise disease Named Entity Recognition (DNER) extraction and PICO identification method. With our method, sentences in paper title and abstract are first classified into different classes of PICO, and medical entities are then identified and classified into P and O. Different kinds of deep learning frameworks are used and experimental results show that our method will achieve high performance and fine-grained extraction results comparing with conventional PICO extraction works.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“and a small number of publications went one step further to normalise to actual concepts and including data sources such as UMLS (Unified Medical Language System). 35 , 39 , 59 , 73 , 85”
From Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: a living systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [39]
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
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1035 · Cited by 463
PICO Element Detection in Medical Text via Long Short-Term Memory Neural Networks.
Jin, D., & Szolovits, P. (2018) · Proceedings of the BioNLP 2018 workshop · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-2308 · Cited by 61
Extracting PICO elements from RCT abstracts using 1-2gram analysis and multitask classification.
Yuan, X., Xiaoli, L., Shilei, L., Qinwen, S., & Ke, L. (2019) · Proceedings of the third International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics 2019 - ICMHI 2019 · doi:10.1145/3340037.3340043 · Cited by 10
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AlpaPICO: Extraction of PICO frames from clinical trial documents using LLMs.
Ghosh, M., Mukherjee, S., Ganguly, A., Basuchowdhuri, P., Naskar, S. K., & Ganguly, D. (2024) · Methods · doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2024.04.005 · Cited by 27
Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review
Schmidt, L., Finnerty Mutlu, A. N., Elmore, R., Olorisade, B. K., Thomas, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2025) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.51117.3 · Cited by 27
Panayi, A., Ward, K., Benhadji-Schaff, A., Ibanez-Lopez, A. S., Xia, A., & Barzilay, R. (2023) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02351-w · Cited by 23
Hu, Y., Keloth, V. K., Raja, K., Chen, Y., & Xu, H. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad542 · Cited by 21
Sercombe, J., Bryant, Z., & Wilson, J. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/68666 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, T., Yu, Y., Mei, J., Tang, Z., Zhang, X., & Li, S.
- Affiliations
- Southeast University (CN)
- IBM Research (China) (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2005.06601
- OpenAlex
- W3025026896
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- medical literature, evidence extraction, clinical text classification
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
