Multi-label classification for biomedical literature: an overview of the BioCreative VII LitCovid Track for COVID-19 literature topic annotations.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been severely impacting global society since December 2019. The related findings such as vaccine and drug development have been reported in biomedical literature-at a rate of about 10 000 articles on COVID-19 per month. Such rapid growth significantly challenges manual curation and interpretation. For instance, LitCovid is a literature database of COVID-19-related articles in PubMed, which has accumulated more than 200 000 articles with millions of accesses each month by users worldwide. One primary curation task is to assign up to eight topics (e.g. Diagnosis and Treatment) to the articles in LitCovid. The annotated topics have been widely used for navigating the COVID literature, rapidly locating articles of interest and other downstream studies. However, annotating the topics has been the bottleneck of manual curation. Despite the continuing advances in biomedical text-mining methods, few have been dedicated to topic annotations in COVID-19 literature. To close the gap, we organized the BioCreative LitCovid track to call for a community effort to tackle automated topic annotation for COVID-19 literature. The BioCreative LitCovid dataset-consisting of over 30 000 articles with manually reviewed topics-was created for training and testing. It is one of the largest multi-label classification datasets in biomedical scientific literature. Nineteen teams worldwide participated and made 80 submissions in total. Most teams used hybrid systems based on transformers. The highest performing submissions achieved 0.8875, 0.9181 and 0.9394 for macro-F1-score, micro-F1-score and instance-based F1-score, respectively. Notably, these scores are substantially higher (e.g. 12%, higher for macro F1-score) than the corresponding scores of the state-of-art multi-label classification method. The level of participation and results demonstrate a successful track and help close the gap between dataset curation and method development. The dataset is publicly available via https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/lu/LitCovid/biocreative/ for benchmarking and further development. Database URL https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/lu/LitCovid/biocreative/.

Comparability of clinical trials and spontaneous reporting data regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Severe adverse events (AEs) after COVID-19 vaccination are not well studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to rarity and short follow-up. To monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines ("Pfizer" vaccine dose 1 and 2, "Moderna" vaccine dose 1 and 2, and "Janssen" vaccine single dose) in the U.S., especially regarding severe AEs, we compare the relative rankings of these vaccines using both RCT and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data. The risks of local and systemic AEs were assessed from the three pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trials and also calculated in the VAERS cohort consisting of 559,717 reports between December 14, 2020 and September 17, 2021. AE rankings of the five vaccine groups calculated separately by RCT and VAERS were consistent, especially for systemic AEs. For severe AEs reported in VAERS, the reported risks of thrombosis and GBS after Janssen vaccine were highest. The reported risk of shingles after the first dose of Moderna vaccine was highest, followed by the second dose of the Moderna vaccine. The reported risk of myocarditis was higher after the second dose of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The reported risk of anaphylaxis was higher after the first dose of Pfizer vaccine. Limitations of this study are the inherent biases of the spontaneous reporting system data, and only including three pivotal RCTs and no comparison with other active vaccine safety surveillance systems.

LitMC-BERT: Transformer-Based Multi-Label Classification of Biomedical Literature With An Application on COVID-19 Literature Curation.

The rapid growth of biomedical literature poses a significant challenge for curation and interpretation. This has become more evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. LitCovid, a literature database of COVID-19 related papers in PubMed, has accumulated over 200,000 articles with millions of accesses. Approximately 10,000 new articles are added to LitCovid every month. A main curation task in LitCovid is topic annotation where an article is assigned with up to eight topics, e.g., Treatment and Diagnosis. The annotated topics have been widely used both in LitCovid (e.g., accounting for ∼18% of total uses) and downstream studies such as network generation. However, it has been a primary curation bottleneck due to the nature of the task and the rapid literature growth. This study proposes LITMC-BERT, a transformer-based multi-label classification method in biomedical literature. It uses a shared transformer backbone for all the labels while also captures label-specific features and the correlations between label pairs. We compare LITMC-BERT with three baseline models on two datasets. Its micro-F1 and instance-based F1 are 5% and 4% higher than the current best results, respectively, and only requires ∼18% of the inference time than the Binary BERT baseline. The related datasets and models are available via https://github.com/ncbi/ml-transformer.

COVID-19 trial graph: a linked graph for COVID-19 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials are an essential part of the effort to find safe and effective prevention and treatment for COVID-19. Given the rapid growth of COVID-19 clinical trials, there is an urgent need for a better clinical trial information retrieval tool that supports searching by specifying criteria, including both eligibility criteria and structured trial information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We built a linked graph for registered COVID-19 clinical trials: the COVID-19 Trial Graph, to facilitate retrieval of clinical trials. Natural language processing tools were leveraged to extract and normalize the clinical trial information from both their eligibility criteria free texts and structured information from ClinicalTrials.gov. We linked the extracted data using the COVID-19 Trial Graph and imported it to a graph database, which supports both querying and visualization. We evaluated trial graph using case queries and graph embedding. RESULTS: The graph currently (as of October 5, 2020) contains 3392 registered COVID-19 clinical trials, with 17 480 nodes and 65 236 relationships. Manual evaluation of case queries found high precision and recall scores on retrieving relevant clinical trials searching from both eligibility criteria and trial-structured information. We observed clustering in clinical trials via graph embedding, which also showed superiority over the baseline (0.870 vs 0.820) in evaluating whether a trial can complete its recruitment successfully. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 Trial Graph is a novel representation of clinical trials that allows diverse search queries and provides a graph-based visualization of COVID-19 clinical trials. High-dimensional vectors mapped by graph embedding for clinical trials would be potentially beneficial for many downstream applications, such as trial end recruitment status prediction and trial similarity comparison. Our methodology also is generalizable to other clinical trials.