Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27141091›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2016

Chemical entity recognition in patents by combining dictionary-based and statistical approaches.

Saber A Akhondi, Ewoud Pons, Zubair Afzal, Herman van Haagen, Benedikt F H Becker, Kristina M Hettne, Erik M van Mulligen, Jan A Kors

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. OGER++: hybrid multi-type entity recognition.Journal of cheminformatics · 2019
    Article
  5. Automatic identification of relevant chemical compounds from patents.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
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

8 authors.

Saber A AkhondiDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam.
Ewoud PonsDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam.
Zubair AfzalDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam.
Herman van HaagenDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam.
Benedikt F H BeckerDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam.
Kristina M HettneDepartment of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Erik M van MulligenDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam.
Jan A KorsDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam j.kors@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe the development of a chemical entity recognition system and its application in the CHEMDNER-patent track of BioCreative 2015. This community challenge includes a Chemical Entity Mention in Patents (CEMP) recognition task and a Chemical Passage Detection (CPD) classification task. We addressed both tasks by an ensemble system that combines a dictionary-based approach with a statistical one. For this purpose the performance of several lexical resources was assessed using Peregrine, our open-source indexing engine. We combined our dictionary-based results on the patent corpus with the results of tmChem, a chemical recognizer using a conditional random field classifier. To improve the performance of tmChem, we utilized three additional features, viz. part-of-speech tags, lemmas and word-vector clusters. When evaluated on the training data, our final system obtained an F-score of 85.21% for the CEMP task, and an accuracy of 91.53% for the CPD task. On the test set, the best system ranked sixth among 21 teams for CEMP with an F-score of 86.82%, and second among nine teams for CPD with an accuracy of 94.23%. The differences in performance between the best ensemble system and the statistical system separately were small.Database URL: http://biosemantics.org/chemdner-patents.

Indexed as

Databases, ChemicalMachine LearningPatents as TopicData MiningModels, StatisticalSoftware

Identifiers

PMID27141091
PMCPMC4852402

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.