Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24393765›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2014

NCBI disease corpus: a resource for disease name recognition and concept normalization.

Rezarta Islamaj Doğan, Robert Leaman, Zhiyong Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 226 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
226citing 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

226 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Large language models for bioinformatics.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

166 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Rezarta Islamaj DoğanNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
Robert LeamanNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA; Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Arizona State University, USA.
Zhiyong LuNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA. Electronic address: zhiyong.lu@nih.gov.

Funding

Named Entity Recognition and Relationship Extraction in BiomedicineZIALM091813 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LU, ZHIYONG · 2013 to 2022
$13.4M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA LM091813
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information encoded in natural language in biomedical literature publications is only useful if efficient and reliable ways of accessing and analyzing that information are available. Natural language processing and text mining tools are therefore essential for extracting valuable information, however, the development of powerful, highly effective tools to automatically detect central biomedical concepts such as diseases is conditional on the availability of annotated corpora. This paper presents the disease name and concept annotations of the NCBI disease corpus, a collection of 793 PubMed abstracts fully annotated at the mention and concept level to serve as a research resource for the biomedical natural language processing community. Each PubMed abstract was manually annotated by two annotators with disease mentions and their corresponding concepts in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®) or Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM®). Manual curation was performed using PubTator, which allowed the use of pre-annotations as a pre-step to manual annotations. Fourteen annotators were randomly paired and differing annotations were discussed for reaching a consensus in two annotation phases. In this setting, a high inter-annotator agreement was observed. Finally, all results were checked against annotations of the rest of the corpus to assure corpus-wide consistency. The public release of the NCBI disease corpus contains 6892 disease mentions, which are mapped to 790 unique disease concepts. Of these, 88% link to a MeSH identifier, while the rest contain an OMIM identifier. We were able to link 91% of the mentions to a single disease concept, while the rest are described as a combination of concepts. In order to help researchers use the corpus to design and test disease identification methods, we have prepared the corpus as training, testing and development sets. To demonstrate its utility, we conducted a benchmarking experiment where we compared three different knowledge-based disease normalization methods with a best performance in F-measure of 63.7%. These results show that the NCBI disease corpus has the potential to significantly improve the state-of-the-art in disease name recognition and normalization research, by providing a high-quality gold standard thus enabling the development of machine-learning based approaches for such tasks. The NCBI disease corpus, guidelines and other associated resources are available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Dogan/DISEASE/.

Indexed as

Knowledge BasesPubMedArtificial IntelligenceComputational BiologyData MiningGenetic Diseases, InbornHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Subject HeadingsNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Natural Language ProcessingSemanticsTerminology as TopicUnited StatesVocabulary, ControlledCorpus annotationDisease name corpusDisease name normalizationDisease name recognitionNamed entity recognition

Identifiers

PMID24393765
PMCPMC3951655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.