ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012
Biological event composition.
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 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Broad-coverage biomedical relation extraction with SemRep.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Towards a characterization of apparent contradictions in the biomedical literature using context analysis.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2019Article
- Biomedical text mining for research rigor and integrity: tasks, challenges, directions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Annotation and detection of drug effects in text for pharmacovigilance.Journal of cheminformatics · 2018Article
- Identification of research hypotheses and new knowledge from scientific literature.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Coreference annotation and resolution in the Colorado Richly Annotated Full Text (CRAFT) corpus of biomedical journal articles.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Sortal anaphora resolution to enhance relation extraction from biomedical literature.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Bio-SCoRes: A Smorgasbord Architecture for Coreference Resolution in Biomedical Text.PloS one · 2016Article
- Augmenting microarray data with literature-based knowledge to enhance gene regulatory network inference.PLoS computational biology · 2014Article
- Approximate subgraph matching-based literature mining for biomedical events and relations.PloS one · 2013Article
- Overview of the ID, EPI and REL tasks of BioNLP Shared Task 2011.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
- RLIMS-P 2.0: A Generalizable Rule-Based Information Extraction System for Literature Mining of Protein Phosphorylation Information.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, biological event extraction has emerged as a key natural language processing task, aiming to address the information overload problem in accessing the molecular biology literature. The BioNLP shared task competitions have contributed to this recent interest considerably. The first competition (BioNLP'09) focused on extracting biological events from Medline abstracts from a narrow domain, while the theme of the latest competition (BioNLP-ST'11) was generalization and a wider range of text types, event types, and subject domains were considered. We view event extraction as a building block in larger discourse interpretation and propose a two-phase, linguistically-grounded, rule-based methodology. In the first phase, a general, underspecified semantic interpretation is composed from syntactic dependency relations in a bottom-up manner. The notion of embedding underpins this phase and it is informed by a trigger dictionary and argument identification rules. Coreference resolution is also performed at this step, allowing extraction of inter-sentential relations. The second phase is concerned with constraining the resulting semantic interpretation by shared task specifications. We evaluated our general methodology on core biological event extraction and speculation/negation tasks in three main tracks of BioNLP-ST'11 (GENIA, EPI, and ID).
resultsWe achieved competitive results in GENIA and ID tracks, while our results in the EPI track leave room for improvement. One notable feature of our system is that its performance across abstracts and articles bodies is stable. Coreference resolution results in minor improvement in system performance. Due to our interest in discourse-level elements, such as speculation/negation and coreference, we provide a more detailed analysis of our system performance in these subtasks.
conclusionsThe results demonstrate the viability of a robust, linguistically-oriented methodology, which clearly distinguishes general semantic interpretation from shared task specific aspects, for biological event extraction. Our error analysis pinpoints some shortcomings, which we plan to address in future work within our incremental system development methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.