Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prioritization based on the phenotypic risk is essential for association studies. Assessment of the risk requires access to a variety of heterogeneous biological databases and analytical tools. FASTSNP (function analysis and selection tool for single nucleotide polymorphisms) is a web server that allows users to efficiently identify and prioritize high-risk SNPs according to their phenotypic risks and putative functional effects. A unique feature of FASTSNP is that the functional effect information used for SNP prioritization is always up-to-date, because FASTSNP extracts the information from 11 external web servers at query time using a team of web wrapper agents. Moreover, FASTSNP is extendable by simply deploying more Web wrapper agents. To validate the results of our prioritization, we analyzed 1569 SNPs from the SNP500Cancer database. The results show that SNPs with a high predicted risk exhibit low allele frequencies for the minor alleles, consistent with a well-known finding that a strong selective pressure exists for functional polymorphisms. We have been using FASTSNP for 2 years and FASTSNP enables us to discover a novel promoter polymorphism. FASTSNP is available at .

Nineteen teams presented results for the Gene Mention Task at the BioCreative II Workshop. In this task participants designed systems to identify substrings in sentences corresponding to gene name mentions. A variety of different methods were used and the results varied with a highest achieved F1 score of 0.8721. Here we present brief descriptions of all the methods used and a statistical analysis of the results. We also demonstrate that, by combining the results from all submissions, an F score of 0.9066 is feasible, and furthermore that the best result makes use of the lowest scoring submissions.

No abstract

No abstract

T he scientific, academic, medical and data science communities have come together in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis to rapidly assess novel paradigms in artificial intelligence (AI) that are rapid and secure, and potentially incentivize data sharing and model training and testing without the usual privacy and data ownership hurdles of conventional collaborations 1,2 . Healthcare providers, researchers and industry have pivoted their focus to address unmet and critical clinical needs created by the crisis, with remarkable results [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] . Clinical trial recruitment has been expedited and facilitated by national regulatory bodies and an international cooperative spirit 10-12 . The data analytics and AI disciplines have always fostered open

BackgroundNumerous publicly available biomedical databases derive data by curating from literatures. The curated data can be useful as training examples for information extraction, but curated data usually lack the exact mentions and their locations in the text required for supervised machine learning. This paper describes a general approach to information extraction using curated data as training examples. The idea is to formulate the problem as cost-sensitive learning from noisy labels, where the cost is estimated by a committee of weak classifiers that consider both curated data and the text.ResultsWe test the idea on two information extraction tasks of Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). The first task is to extract target phenotypes (diseases or traits) of a study and the second is to extract ethnicity backgrounds of study subjects for different stages (initial or replication). Experimental results show that our approach can achieve 87 % of Precision-at-2 (P@2) for disease/trait extraction, and 0.83 of F1-Score for stage-ethnicity extraction, both outperforming their cost-insensitive baseline counterparts.ConclusionsThe results show that curated biomedical databases can potentially be reused as training examples to train information extractors without expert annotation or refinement, opening an unprecedented opportunity of using “big data” in biomedical text mining.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12859-015-0844-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The field of phenomics has been investigating network structure among large arrays of phenotypes, and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been used to investigate the relationship between genetic variation and single diseases/outcomes. A novel approach has emerged combining both the exploration of phenotypic structure and genotypic variation, known as the phenome-wide association study (PheWAS). The Population Architecture using Genomics and Epidemiology (PAGE) network is a National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-supported collaboration of four groups accessing eight extensively characterized epidemiologic studies. The primary focus of PAGE is deep characterization of well-replicated GWAS variants and their relationships to various phenotypes and traits in diverse epidemiologic studies that include European Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans/Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. The rich phenotypic resources of PAGE studies provide a unique opportunity for PheWAS as each genotyped variant can be tested for an association with the wide array of phenotypic measurements available within the studies of PAGE, including prevalent and incident status for multiple common clinical conditions and risk factors, as well as clinical parameters and intermediate biomarkers. The results of PheWAS can be used to discover novel relationships between SNPs, phenotypes, and networks of interrelated phenotypes; identify pleiotropy; provide novel mechanistic insights; and foster hypothesis generation. The PAGE network has developed infrastructure to support and perform PheWAS in a high-throughput manner. As implementing the PheWAS approach has presented several challenges, the infrastructure and methodology, as well as insights gained in this project, are presented herein to benefit the larger scientific community.

BackgroundWe report the Gene Normalization (GN) challenge in BioCreative III where participating teams were asked to return a ranked list of identifiers of the genes detected in full-text articles. For training, 32 fully and 500 partially annotated articles were prepared. A total of 507 articles were selected as the test set. Due to the high annotation cost, it was not feasible to obtain gold-standard human annotations for all test articles. Instead, we developed an Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm approach for choosing a small number of test articles for manual annotation that were most capable of differentiating team performance. Moreover, the same algorithm was subsequently used for inferring ground truth based solely on team submissions. We report team performance on both gold standard and inferred ground truth using a newly proposed metric called Threshold Average Precision (TAP-k).ResultsWe received a total of 37 runs from 14 different teams for the task. When evaluated using the gold-standard annotations of the 50 articles, the highest TAP-k scores were 0.3297 (k=5), 0.3538 (k=10), and 0.3535 (k=20), respectively. Higher TAP-k scores of 0.4916 (k=5, 10, 20) were observed when evaluated using the inferred ground truth over the full test set. When combining team results using machine learning, the best composite system achieved TAP-k scores of 0.3707 (k=5), 0.4311 (k=10), and 0.4477 (k=20) on the gold standard, representing improvements of 12.4%, 21.8%, and 26.6% over the best team results, respectively.ConclusionsBy using full text and being species non-specific, the GN task in BioCreative III has moved closer to a real literature curation task than similar tasks in the past and presents additional challenges for the text mining community, as revealed in the overall team results. By evaluating teams using the gold standard, we show that the EM algorithm allows team submissions to be differentiated while keeping the manual annotation effort feasible. Using the inferred ground truth we show measures of comparative performance between teams. Finally, by comparing team rankings on gold standard vs. inferred ground truth, we further demonstrate that the inferred ground truth is as effective as the gold standard for detecting good team performance.