Information Retrieval in an Infodemic: The Case of COVID-19 Publications

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

The COVID-19 global health crisis has led to an exponential surge in published scientific literature. In an attempt to tackle the pandemic, extremely large COVID-19–related corpora are being created, sometimes with inaccurate information, which is no longer at scale of human analyses.

Objective

In the context of searching for scientific evidence in the deluge of COVID-19–related literature, we present an information retrieval methodology for effective identification of relevant sources to answer biomedical queries posed using natural language.

Methods

Our multistage retrieval methodology combines probabilistic weighting models and reranking algorithms based on deep neural architectures to boost the ranking of relevant documents. Similarity of COVID-19 queries is compared to documents, and a series of postprocessing methods is applied to the initial ranking list to improve the match between the query and the biomedical information source and boost the position of relevant documents.

Results

The methodology was evaluated in the context of the TREC-COVID challenge, achieving competitive results with the top-ranking teams participating in the competition. Particularly, the combination of bag-of-words and deep neural language models significantly outperformed an Okapi Best Match 25–based baseline, retrieving on average, 83% of relevant documents in the top 20.

Conclusions

These results indicate that multistage retrieval supported by deep learning could enhance identification of literature for COVID-19–related questions posed using natural language.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.29.428847: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    As shown in Figure 1, this is a large and dynamically growing semi-structured dataset from various sources like PubMed, PubMed Central, WHO and preprint servers like bioRxiv, medRxiv, and arXiv.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    bioRxiv
    suggested: (bioRxiv, RRID:SCR_003933)
    arXiv
    suggested: (arXiv, RRID:SCR_006500)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.