Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ranking Narrative Query Graphs for Biomedical Document Retrieval (Technical Report)

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that graph-based document retrieval can beat keyword baselines in both precision and recall when ranking matched subgraphs and relaxing exact-match queries, all without supervision.

desk verdict A solid engineering paper on ranking graph-based medical document retrieval, but its precision claims are undermined by the unjudged-document handling and the abstract overstates what the data show. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15232 v1 pith:W3WV75E4 submitted 2024-12-06 cs.IR

Hermann Kroll , Pascal Sackhoff , Timo Breuer , Ralf Schenkel , Wolf-Tilo Balke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords graph-basedrankingnarrativequerygraphsbiomedicaldocumentretrievalrelaxationontologicalrewritingunsupervisedTRECPrecisionMedicine
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that graph-based document retrieval need not end at exact-match results: once each document is represented as a graph of concept interactions, the system can score how well a matched subgraph reflects the query, and can relax the query in controlled ways to find more documents. It contributes GraphRank, an unsupervised ranking built from extraction confidence, tf-idf-style concept weights, coverage, and neighborhood similarity; Partial Matches; and ontological rewriting that generalizes concepts upward. The central empirical result is that on the TREC Precision Medicine 2020 benchmark, partial matching plus ontology expansion achieves Recall@1000 of 0.86 versus 0.79 for native BM25, while GraphRank raises precision at top ranks. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a path to precise, explainable, and training-free retrieval for concept-centric scientific search.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fragment, a subgraph of a document graph mapped isomorphically to a narrative query graph. GraphRank scores each fragment as the product of its translation fidelity and a weighted sum of four normalized similarities: minimum extraction confidence, minimum tf-idf of edges, minimum concept coverage, and relational similarity from neighboring edges; the document's score is its best fragment. Partial matches are ranked below all full matches, and ontological rewriting scores generalized concepts by inverse path length in the ontology, so broader concepts contribute with lower weight.

What would settle it

Re-run the PM2020 evaluation while treating every unjudged retrieved document as non-relevant (or judging a random sample of them); if Partial Match + Ontology + GraphRank no longer beats native BM25 in P@10 and nDCG, the paper's precision and recall advantage is an artifact of the disregarded unjudged documents.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that exact-match graph retrieval can be turned into an effective ranked retrieval mode by scoring matched fragments rather than treating all matches as equally relevant. On the TREC-PM2020 benchmark, combining partial matching with ontological expansion reaches Recall@1000 of 0.86 against 0.79 for native BM25, and GraphRank improves P@10 over unranked full matches while staying unsupervised. The authors do not claim superiority over learned systems; they claim that their graph-based digital library system can now offer competitive ranking and higher recall on concept-centric queries, and that this is explainable because each score component corresponds to an inspectable property of the extracted document graph.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that unjudged documents retrieved by the graph system can be dropped from precision and nDCG calculations, even though TREC pooling does not mark them irrelevant, which can inflate the reported gains over BM25.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The discovery system can now return ranked result lists without maintaining a separate text index, since all ranking signals come from the graph representation.
  • Partial matching increases recall beyond exact full matches, while full matches always outrank partial ones, preserving the precision of exactly matching documents.
  • Ontological expansion substantially improves recall on concept-centric queries, for example from 0.60 to 0.84 on PM2017, by retrieving documents that mention a more general concept.
  • GraphRank is unsupervised and uses equal weights by default, so it can be deployed in domains without training data and matches BM25 reranking performance on PM2020.
  • The approach is limited to concept-centric queries; generic information needs such as school closings during the pandemic are not translated well, and native BM25 outperforms it on TREC-COVID.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The fragment-scoring scheme, with its minimum-over-edges composition, could be ported to other structured document representations, for instance neural graph embeddings, as a query-conjunctiveness regularizer.
  • Replacing the Jaccard translation score with a semantic similarity measure would likely recover some of the recall gap observed on TREC-COVID, where the vocabulary is the bottleneck.
  • The inverse-path-length similarity used for ontological rewriting suggests a natural stopping rule for expansion: stop generalizing when the summed similarity budget falls below a threshold.
  • If the unjudged-document issue is corrected, the measured gains may shrink; a hybrid that switches to BM25 when translation confidence is low follows directly from the paper's suggested fallback mode.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends an existing graph-based biomedical document retrieval system with GraphRank, an unsupervised method for ranking documents that match narrative query graphs, and adds query relaxation through partial matching and ontological rewriting. The system is evaluated on the TREC Precision Medicine 2017-2020 benchmarks and TREC-COVID 2020, with comparisons against BM25 reranking and native BM25 retrieval. The central claim is that the combination of graph-based ranking and query relaxation yields higher precision and recall for concept-centric biomedical queries, with code, results, and topic-wise evaluations made publicly available.

Significance. If the evaluation issues are resolved, this is a useful contribution to graph-based information retrieval. The work is grounded in a real, large-scale digital library system (37M documents), requires no training data, and is fully unsupervised. The authors share their code and detailed topic-wise results, which aids reproducibility. The paper also provides a fair treatment of limitations by showing degraded performance on TREC-COVID, where concepts are not well supported. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on a non-standard and likely biased evaluation protocol, so the significance is conditional on a corrected evaluation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Tables 1 and 2] The decision to ignore unjudged documents when computing precision and nDCG is not a standard TREC evaluation and is asymmetric across systems. As the authors note, their graph-based matching retrieves many unjudged documents (44 at rank 20 and 113 at rank 30 on PM2020), whereas native BM25, being term-based and aligned with the original pooling, is likely to retrieve far fewer. Since unjudged documents are not marked irrelevant, dropping them from the denominators inflates P@k and nDCG for the graph-based system relative to BM25. This directly affects the abstract's claim of 'higher precision.' The authors should re-run the evaluation treating unjudged documents as non-relevant (or using bpref) and report both versions; if the conclusions change, the claims must be revised.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 2, and the abstract] Results are reported only on the subset of topics that could be translated into graph queries with a translation score above 0.9 (e.g., 26/30 for PM2017, 45/50 for PM2018, 37/40 for PM2019, and about half of TREC-COVID). The abstract's unqualified statement that the extensions 'improve the system further so that users can retrieve results with higher precision and higher recall' overstates the evidence, since the evaluation excludes a substantial fraction of benchmark topics. The conclusion in Section 5 is appropriately conditional ('If queries were concept-centric and the system knew those concepts'), but the abstract should match that framing or the paper should report full-topic results with appropriate caveats.
  3. [Section 4.1 (Query Translation for benchmarks)] The evaluation uses wildcard predicates between the searched concepts, because the TREC Precision Medicine topics do not provide relation information. This means the benchmark tests a relaxed version of the system in which any interaction between concepts counts, rather than the intended narrative query graph setting where users specify predicates such as 'treats' or 'inhibits.' The predicate-specific components of GraphRank, especially the predicate specificity in Eq. (3), are therefore not actually exercised in the evaluation. The paper should either evaluate on data with explicit predicates (or manually assigned plausible predicates) or discuss more thoroughly how the wildcard-predicate assumption affects the validity of the central claim for the real system.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (7)] The sentence preceding Eq. (7) says the relational similarity is computed 'by averaging all edge neighbors' tf-idf, coverage, and confidence scores,' but Eq. (7) is a sum with no normalization by the number of neighbor edges. Please align the text and the formula (or normalize the sum) so the method is reproducible as described.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 2] The TREC-COVID rows list 'Topics (25/50)', but the text in Section 4.3 states that '24 out of 50 topics had a translation score above 0.9 and contained at least two concepts.' Please correct this numerical inconsistency.
  3. [Section 4.3 (generally)] No significance tests are reported. Given that several metric differences in Tables 1 and 2 are small (e.g., nDCG@10 differences of 0.01–0.03), the authors should report per-topic significance (e.g., paired bootstrap or permutation test) or explicitly state that the observed differences are not tested for significance.
  4. [Section 4.3 heading] The heading 'PM2017-2029' contains a typo; it should be 'PM2017-2019'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ranking and expansion methods are evaluated on external TREC benchmarks, and the self-citations are prior-system building blocks rather than load-bearing circular evidence.

full rationale

The paper's contributions, GraphRank, Partial Match, and ontological rewriting, are defined in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 with explicit scoring equations (Eq. 1-10), and the claimed improvements are measured against external TREC Precision Medicine 2017-2020 and TREC-COVID relevance judgments. No target metric is inserted into the scoring formulas: the weights are hand-set (w_i = 0.25), predicate specificity is taken from a pre-defined taxonomy, and the retrieval candidates come from the authors' existing document-graph pipeline. None of the reported recall, precision, or nDCG values is produced by fitting a parameter to the benchmark judgments, so the evaluation is not circular by construction. The self-citations to earlier work [9, 10, 11] supply the document extraction, query interface, and user-study context, but the new ranking method's effectiveness is judged against external qrels, not against those citations. The explicit decision in Section 4.3 'to ignore unjudged documents' is a legitimate evaluation-protocol concern: it may inflate precision and nDCG for systems retrieving many unjudged documents. However, that is a validity threat, not a circularity threat, since it does not make the measured gain equivalent to the input by definition. The paper also reports honest limitations, including TREC-COVID failures and untranslatable topics, which would be incompatible with a forced or self-justifying argument. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quality of automatically extracted document graphs, on the wildcard-predicate reconstruction of benchmark queries, and on the decision to exclude unjudged documents from the metrics. The ranking itself has two hand-set ingredients (feature weights and predicate specificity scores) that are not optimized but still affect every score.

free parameters (3)
  • GraphRank feature weights W = w1 = w2 = w3 = w4 = 0.25
    Section 4.3 states equal weights were used for confidence, min_tfidf, coverage, and relational_similarity, with future parameter search deferred. The final document score is a weighted sum, so these weights directly determine rankings.
  • Predicate specificity scores = 1.0, 0.5, 0.25 for the three taxonomy levels
    Used in Equation (3) for edge_tfidf. Section 4.3 assigns 1.0 to most-specific predicates, 0.5 one level up, and 0.25 to the generic associated level; these hand-set scores shape all tf-idf edge scores.
  • Topic inclusion threshold for translated queries = translation score above 0.9
    Tables report only topics with translation score above 0.9 and at least two concepts, for example PM2017 26/30 and TREC-COVID 25/50. This hand-set threshold determines the evaluated subset and shapes reported performance.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Document graphs produced by PathIE concept linking and dependency-based extraction faithfully represent the biomedical content needed for retrieval.
    Section 2 cites extraction quality of 39.1% F1 and linking quality of 56.0-77.6% F1 from prior work [10]; ranking operates on this noisy graph representation without correction.
  • ad hoc to paper Any predicate between query components is an acceptable interpretation of the TREC Precision Medicine topics.
    Section 4.1 generates graph queries as wildcard predicates (?p) because the benchmark provides no relation information; this broadens matches and is a modeling choice, not a benchmark-given fact.
  • ad hoc to paper Unjudged documents in the TREC pools can be ignored when computing precision and nDCG without biasing the comparison.
    Section 4.3 decides to ignore unjudged documents; pooled judgments do not certify irrelevance, so this is an unproven assumption about the evaluation data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ranking Narrative Query Graphs for Biomedical Document Retrieval (Technical Report)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3WV75E4

@misc{pith2026241215232,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ranking Narrative Query Graphs for Biomedical Document Retrieval (Technical Report)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3WV75E4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15232}
}
read the original abstract

Keyword-based searches are today's standard in digital libraries. Yet, complex retrieval scenarios like in scientific knowledge bases, need more sophisticated access paths. Although each document somewhat contributes to a domain's body of knowledge, the exact structure between keywords, i.e., their possible relationships, and the contexts spanned within each single document will be crucial for effective retrieval. Following this logic, individual documents can be seen as small-scale knowledge graphs on which graph queries can provide focused document retrieval. We implemented a full-fledged graph-based discovery system for the biomedical domain and demonstrated its benefits in the past. Unfortunately, graph-based retrieval methods generally follow an 'exact match' paradigm, which severely hampers search efficiency, since exact match results are hard to rank by relevance. This paper extends our existing discovery system and contributes effective graph-based unsupervised ranking methods, a new query relaxation paradigm, and ontological rewriting. These extensions improve the system further so that users can retrieve results with higher precision and higher recall due to partial matching and ontological rewriting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15232 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Systematic overview: Users formulate their information needs as graph patterns between concepts. Queries are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conceptual Overview: When ranking document [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Topic-wise Recall@1000 evaluation on PM2020: GraphRank vs. Native BM25. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Topic-wise P@20 evaluation on PM2020: GraphRank vs. Native BM25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Topic-wise P@20 evaluation on TREC-COVID (Abstracts): GraphRank vs. Native BM25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Demonstrating Narrative Pattern Discovery from Biomedical Literature

    cs.IR 2025-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    The PubPharm team integrated a narrative pattern miner that ranks entity-relationship edges from documents containing the user's chosen entities, and tested it with five expert interviews.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Maristella Agosti, Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, and Stefano Marchesin. 2018. The University of Padua IMS Research Group at TREC 2018 Precision Medicine Track. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2018 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 500-331). National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). https://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec...

    work page 2018

  2. [3]

    Laura Dietz, Alexander Kotov, and Edgar Meij. 2018. Utilizing Knowledge Graphs for Text-Centric Information Retrieval. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2018 . ACM, 1387–1390. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210187

    arXiv 2018

  3. [4]

    Islam Akef Ebeid and Elizabeth Pierce. 2021. MedGraph: An experimental semantic information retrieval method using knowledge graph embedding for the biomedical citations indexed in PubMed. CoRR abs/2112.06348 (2021). arXiv:2112.06348 https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.06348

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [5]

    Herskovic, Len Y

    Jorge R. Herskovic, Len Y. Tanaka, William Hersh, and Elmer V. Bernstam

    work page

  5. [6]

    Kai Hui, Andrew Yates, Klaus Berberich, and Gerard de Melo. 2017. PACRR: A Position-Aware Neural IR Model for Relevance Matching. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP

    work page 2017

  6. [7]

    Amina Kadry and Laura Dietz. 2017. Open Relation Extraction for Support Passage Retrieval: Merit and Open Issues. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval,

    work page 2017

  7. [8]

    Hermann Kroll, Jan-Christoph Kalo, Denis Nagel, Stephan Mennicke, and Wolf- Tilo Balke. 2020. Context-Compatible Information Fusion for Scientific Knowl- edge Graphs. In Digital Libraries for Open Knowledge - 24th International Con- ference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, TPDL 2020 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12246). Springer, 33...

    doi:10.1007/978-3- 2020

  8. [9]

    Hermann Kroll, Christin Katharina Kreutz, Pascal Sackhoff, and Wolf-Tilo Balke

    work page

Show all 43 references
  1. [10]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3077136.3080744

    ACM, 1149–1152. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077136.3080744

  2. [11]

    Hermann Kroll, Jan Pirklbauer, Jan-Christoph Kalo, Morris Kunz, Johannes Ruthmann, and Wolf-Tilo Balke. 2024. A discovery system for narrative query graphs: entity-interaction-aware document retrieval. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 25, 1 (2024), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00799-023-00356-3

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    Hermann Kroll, Florian Plötzky, Jan Pirklbauer, and Wolf-Tilo Balke. 2022. What a Publication Tells You—Benefits of Narrative Information Access in Digital Li- braries. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (Cologne, Germany) (JCDL ’22). Ass...

    2022

  4. [13]

    Lisa Langnickel, Roman Baum, Johannes Darms, Sumit Madan, and Juliane Fluck

  5. [14]

    Hermann Kroll, Jan Pirklbauer, and Wolf-Tilo Balke. 2021. A Toolbox for the Nearly-Unsupervised Construction of Digital Library Knowledge Graphs. In ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL 2021 . IEEE, 21–30. https: //doi.org/10.1109/JCDL52503.2021.00014

    2021

  6. [15]

    Craig Macdonald and Nicola Tonellotto. 2020. Declarative Experimentation in Information Retrieval using PyTerrier. In ICTIR ’20: The 2020 ACM SIGIR International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval, 2020 . ACM, 161–

    2020

  7. [16]

    Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze

    Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze. 2008. Introduction to information retrieval . Cambridge University Press. https: //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809071

    2008 doi

  8. [17]

    Manning, Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer, Jenny Rose Finkel, Steven Bethard, and David McClosky

    Christopher D. Manning, Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer, Jenny Rose Finkel, Steven Bethard, and David McClosky. 2014. The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2014, Syst...

    2014 doi

  9. [19]

    Zhengdong Lu and Hang Li. 2013. A Deep Architecture for Match- ing Short Texts. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26: 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2013

  10. [20]

    Vincent Nguyen, Sarvnaz Karimi, Sara Falamaki, Diego Mollá Aliod, Cécile Paris, and Stephen Wan. 2017. CSIRO at 2017 TREC Precision Medicine Track. In Proceedings of The Twenty-Sixth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2017 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 500-324). National Instit...

    2017

  11. [21]

    Rodrigo Frassetto Nogueira, Wei Yang, Jimmy Lin, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Document Expansion by Query Prediction. CoRR abs/1904.08375 (2019). arXiv:1904.08375 http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08375

    2019 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Jiho Noh and Ramakanth Kavuluru. 2017. Team UKNLP at TREC 2017 Preci- sion Medicine Track: A Knowledge-Based IR System with Tuned Query-Time Boosting. In Proceedings of The Twenty-Sixth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2017 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 500-324) . National In...

    2017

  13. [23]

    Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio, Stefano Marchesin, and Maristella Agosti. 2019. Ex- ploring how to Combine Query Reformulations for Precision Medicine. In Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2019 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 1250). National Institute...

    2019

  14. [24]

    Ronak Pradeep, Rodrigo Frassetto Nogueira, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. The Expando- Mono-Duo Design Pattern for Text Ranking with Pretrained Sequence-to- Sequence Models. CoRR abs/2101.05667 (2021). arXiv:2101.05667 https: //arxiv.org/abs/2101.05667

    2021 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Voorhees, Lucy Lu Wang, and William R

    Kirk Roberts, Tasmeer Alam, Steven Bedrick, Dina Demner-Fushman, Kyle Lo, Ian Soboroff, Ellen M. Voorhees, Lucy Lu Wang, and William R. Hersh. 2021. Searching for scientific evidence in a pandemic: An overview of TREC-COVID.J. Biomed. Informatics 121 (2021), 103865. https://do...

    2021

  16. [26]

    Sunil Mohan, Nicolas Fiorini, Sun Kim, and Zhiyong Lu. 2018. A Fast Deep Learning Model for Textual Relevance in Biomedical Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web, WWW

    2018

  17. [27]

    Voorhees, William R

    Kirk Roberts, Dina Demner-Fushman, Ellen M. Voorhees, William R. Hersh, Steven Bedrick, and Alexander J. Lazar. 2018. Overview of the TREC 2018 Precision Medicine Track. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2018 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 5...

    2018

  18. [28]

    Voorhees, William R

    Kirk Roberts, Dina Demner-Fushman, Ellen M. Voorhees, William R. Hersh, Steven Bedrick, Alexander J. Lazar, and Shubham Pant. 2017. Overview of the TREC 2017 Precision Medicine Track. In Proceedings of The Twenty-Sixth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2017 (NIST Special Publica...

    2017

  19. [29]

    Voorhees, William R

    Kirk Roberts, Dina Demner-Fushman, Ellen M. Voorhees, William R. Hersh, Steven Bedrick, Alexander J. Lazar, Shubham Pant, and Funda Meric-Bernstam

  20. [30]

    Maciej Rybinski, Sarvnaz Karimi, and Cécile Paris. 2019. CSIRO at 2019 TREC Precision Medicine Track. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2019 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 1250) . National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). https:/...

    2019

  21. [31]

    Denny Vrandecic and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM 57, 10 (2014), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2629489

    2014

  22. [32]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2022. Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-training. CoRR abs/2212.03533 (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2212.03533 arXiv:2212.03533

    2022 doi arXiv

  23. [33]

    Chih-Hsuan Wei, Alexis Allot, Robert Leaman, and Zhiyong Lu. 2019. PubTator central: automated concept annotation for biomedical full text articles. Nucleic Acids Research 47, W1 (05 2019), W587–W593. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/ gkz389

    2019 doi

  24. [34]

    Voorhees, Steven Bedrick, and William R

    Kirk Roberts, Dina Demner-Fushman, Ellen M. Voorhees, Steven Bedrick, and William R. Hersh. 2020. Overview of the TREC 2020 Precision Medicine Track. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2020 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 1266). National Institu...

    2020

  25. [35]

    Sendong Zhao, Chang Su, Andrea Sboner, and Fei Wang. 2019. GRAPHENE: A Precise Biomedical Literature Retrieval Engine with Graph Augmented Deep Learning and External Knowledge Empowerment. InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Mana...

    2019

  26. [36]

    Zhi Zheng, Canjia Li, Ben He, and Jungang Xu. 2018. UCAS at TREC-2018 Precision Medicine Track. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2018 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 500-331) . National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). https://t...

    2018

  27. [43]

    Chih-Hsuan Wei, Hung-Yu Kao, and Zhiyong Lu. 2013. PubTator: a web-based text mining tool for assisting biocuration. Nucleic Acids Research 41, W1 (05 2013), W518–W522. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt441

    2013 doi

  28. [168]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3409256.3409829

  29. [2007]

    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 14, 2 (03 2007), 212–220

    A Day in the Life of PubMed: Analysis of a Typical Day’s Query Log. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 14, 2 (03 2007), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2191

    2007 doi

  30. [2013]

    https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2013/hash/ 8a0e1141fd37fa5b98d5bb769ba1a7cc-Abstract.html

    1367–1375. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2013/hash/ 8a0e1141fd37fa5b98d5bb769ba1a7cc-Abstract.html

    2013

  31. [2017]

    https://doi.org/10

    Association for Computational Linguistics, 1049–1058. https://doi.org/10. 18653/v1/d17-1110

  32. [2018]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186049

    ACM, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186049

  33. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2019 (NIST Special Publication, Vol

    Overview of the TREC 2019 Precision Medicine Track. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 2019 (NIST Special Publication, Vol. 1250). National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). https://trec. nist.gov/pubs/trec28/papers/OVERVIEW.PM.pdf

    2019

  34. [2021]

    In Public Health and Informatics

    COVID-19 preVIEW: Semantic Search to Explore COVID-19 Research Preprints. In Public Health and Informatics . IOS Press, Amsterdam, the Nether- lands, 78–82. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI210124

    doi

  35. [2023]

    In ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL 2023, Santa Fe, NM, USA, June 26-30, 2023

    Enriching Simple Keyword Queries for Domain-Aware Narrative Retrieval. In ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL 2023, Santa Fe, NM, USA, June 26-30, 2023. IEEE, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL57899.2023.00029

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.