ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2014
Detecting concept mentions in biomedical text using hidden Markov model: multiple concept types at once or one at a time?
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifaceted Natural Language Processing Task-Based Evaluation of Bidirectional Encoder Representations From Transformers Models for Bilingual (Korean and English) Clinical Notes: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Effective norm emergence in cell systems under limited communication.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Dynamically analyzing cell interactions in biological environments using multiagent social learning framework.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2017Article
- SimConcept: a hybrid approach for simplifying composite named entities in biomedical text.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2015Article
- SimConcept: A Hybrid Approach for Simplifying Composite Named Entities in Biomedicine.ACM-BCB ... ... : the ... ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine. ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and BiomedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying phrases that refer to particular concept types is a critical step in extracting information from documents. Provided with annotated documents as training data, supervised machine learning can automate this process. When building a machine learning model for this task, the model may be built to detect all types simultaneously (all-types-at-once) or it may be built for one or a few selected types at a time (one-type- or a-few-types-at-a-time). It is of interest to investigate which strategy yields better detection performance.
resultsHidden Markov models using the different strategies were evaluated on a clinical corpus annotated with three concept types (i2b2/VA corpus) and a biology literature corpus annotated with five concept types (JNLPBA corpus). Ten-fold cross-validation tests were conducted and the experimental results showed that models trained for multiple concept types consistently yielded better performance than those trained for a single concept type. F-scores observed for the former strategies were higher than those observed for the latter by 0.9 to 2.6% on the i2b2/VA corpus and 1.4 to 10.1% on the JNLPBA corpus, depending on the target concept types. Improved boundary detection and reduced type confusion were observed for the all-types-at-once strategy.
conclusionsThe current results suggest that detection of concept phrases could be improved by simultaneously tackling multiple concept types. This also suggests that we should annotate multiple concept types in developing a new corpus for machine learning models. Further investigation is expected to gain insights in the underlying mechanism to achieve good performance when multiple concept types are considered.
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.