Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22759456›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012

Overview of the ID, EPI and REL tasks of BioNLP Shared Task 2011.

Sampo Pyysalo, Tomoko Ohta, Rafal Rak, Dan Sullivan, Chunhong Mao, Chunxia Wang, Bruno Sobral, Jun'ichi Tsujii, Sophia Ananiadou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The overview of the BioRED (Biomedical Relation Extraction Dataset) track at BioCreative VIII.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Time Matters: Examine Temporal Effects on Biomedical Language Models.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Collaborative relation annotation and quality analysis in Markyt environment.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Event-based text mining for biology and functional genomics.Briefings in functional genomics · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sampo PyysaloSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. sampo.pyysalo@gmail.com
Tomoko Ohta
Rafal Rak
Dan Sullivan
Chunhong Mao
Chunxia Wang
Bruno Sobral
Jun'ichi Tsujii
Sophia Ananiadou

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G013160/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present the preparation, resources, results and analysis of three tasks of the BioNLP Shared Task 2011: the main tasks on Infectious Diseases (ID) and Epigenetics and Post-translational Modifications (EPI), and the supporting task on Entity Relations (REL). The two main tasks represent extensions of the event extraction model introduced in the BioNLP Shared Task 2009 (ST'09) to two new areas of biomedical scientific literature, each motivated by the needs of specific biocuration tasks. The ID task concerns the molecular mechanisms of infection, virulence and resistance, focusing in particular on the functions of a class of signaling systems that are ubiquitous in bacteria. The EPI task is dedicated to the extraction of statements regarding chemical modifications of DNA and proteins, with particular emphasis on changes relating to the epigenetic control of gene expression. By contrast to these two application-oriented main tasks, the REL task seeks to support extraction in general by separating challenges relating to part-of relations into a subproblem that can be addressed by independent systems. Seven groups participated in each of the two main tasks and four groups in the supporting task. The participating systems indicated advances in the capability of event extraction methods and demonstrated generalization in many aspects: from abstracts to full texts, from previously considered subdomains to new ones, and from the ST'09 extraction targets to other entities and events. The highest performance achieved in the supporting task REL, 58% F-score, is broadly comparable with levels reported for other relation extraction tasks. For the ID task, the highest-performing system achieved 56% F-score, comparable to the state-of-the-art performance at the established ST'09 task. In the EPI task, the best result was 53% F-score for the full set of extraction targets and 69% F-score for a reduced set of core extraction targets, approaching a level of performance sufficient for user-facing applications. In this study, we extend on previously reported results and perform further analyses of the outputs of the participating systems. We place specific emphasis on aspects of system performance relating to real-world applicability, considering alternate evaluation metrics and performing additional manual analysis of system outputs. We further demonstrate that the strengths of extraction systems can be combined to improve on the performance achieved by any system in isolation. The manually annotated corpora, supporting resources, and evaluation tools for all tasks are available from http://www.bionlp-st.org and the tasks continue as open challenges for all interested parties.

Indexed as

EpigenomicsInformation Storage and RetrievalNatural Language ProcessingProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalCommunicable DiseasesDNA MethylationHistone CodeLipoproteinsProteinslipoprotein-associated coagulation inhibitorLipoproteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID22759456
PMCPMC3384257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.