Skip to main content

Table 3 The classification results for the abstract shown in Table 2 (explicit argumentative labels are removed before classification). For each row, the attributed class is followed by the score for the class, followed by the extracted text segment. In this example, one of RESULTS sentences (in bold) is misclassified as METHODS, while he INTRODUCTION sentence has been classified as PURPOSE.

From: Gene Ontology density estimation and discourse analysis for automatic GeneRiF extraction

CONCLUSION (00160116) The highly favorable pathologic stage (RI-RII, 58%) and the fact that the majority of patients were alive and disease-free suggested a more favorable prognosis for this type of renal cell carcinoma.
METHODS (00160119) Tumors were classified according to well-established histologic criteria to determine stage of disease; the system proposed by Robson was used.
METHODS (00162303) Of 250 renal cell carcinomas analyzed, 36 were classified as chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, representing 14% of the group studied.
PURPOSE (00156456) In this study, we analyzed 250 renal cell carcinomas to a) determine frequency of CCRC at our Hospital and b) analyze clinical and pathologic features of CCRCs.
PURPOSE (00167817) Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (CCRC) comprises 5% of neoplasms of renal tubular epithelium. CCRC may have a slightly better prognosis than clear cell carcinoma, but outcome data are limited.
RESULTS (00155338) Robson staging was possible in all cases, and 10 patients were stage 1) 11 stage II; 10 stage III, and five stage IV.
\