ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017
A neural network multi-task learning approach to biomedical named entity recognition.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- PubMed knowledge graph 2.0: Connecting papers, patents, and clinical trials in biomedical science.Scientific data · 2025Article
- A comprehensive large scale biomedical knowledge graph for AI powered data driven biomedical research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Integrating deep learning architectures for enhanced biomedical relation extraction: a pipeline approach.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024Article
- Dataset of miRNA-disease relations extracted from textual data using transformer-based neural networks.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024Article
- A critical assessment of using ChatGPT for extracting structured data from clinical notes.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- From Organelle Morphology to Whole-Plant Phenotyping: A Phenotypic Detection Method Based on Deep Learning.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- BioBBC: a multi-feature model that enhances the detection of biomedical entities.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Advancing entity recognition in biomedicine via instruction tuning of large language models.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Dictionary-based matching graph network for biomedical named entity recognition.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- An extensive benchmark study on biomedical text generation and mining with ChatGPT.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Identifying Patient Populations in Texts Describing Drug Approvals Through Deep Learning-Based Information Extraction: Development of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Consistency enhancement of model prediction on document-level named entity recognition.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- AIONER: all-in-one scheme-based biomedical named entity recognition using deep learning.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- A Review on Electronic Health Record Text-Mining for Biomedical Name Entity Recognition in Healthcare Domain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Chemical identification and indexing in full-text articles: an overview of the NLM-Chem track at BioCreative VII.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023Article
- Entity and relation extraction from clinical case reports of COVID-19: a natural language processing approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- A survey on clinical natural language processing in the United Kingdom from 2007 to 2022.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Review
- Biomedical named entity recognition with the combined feature attention and fully-shared multi-task learning.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- BatteryDataExtractor: battery-aware text-mining software embedded with BERT models.Chemical science · 2022Article
- Chemical identification and indexing in PubMed full-text articles using deep learning and heuristics.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNamed Entity Recognition (NER) is a key task in biomedical text mining. Accurate NER systems require task-specific, manually-annotated datasets, which are expensive to develop and thus limited in size. Since such datasets contain related but different information, an interesting question is whether it might be possible to use them together to improve NER performance. To investigate this, we develop supervised, multi-task, convolutional neural network models and apply them to a large number of varied existing biomedical named entity datasets. Additionally, we investigated the effect of dataset size on performance in both single- and multi-task settings.
resultsWe present a single-task model for NER, a Multi-output multi-task model and a Dependent multi-task model. We apply the three models to 15 biomedical datasets containing multiple named entities including Anatomy, Chemical, Disease, Gene/Protein and Species. Each dataset represent a task. The results from the single-task model and the multi-task models are then compared for evidence of benefits from Multi-task Learning. With the Multi-output multi-task model we observed an average F-score improvement of 0.8% when compared to the single-task model from an average baseline of 78.4%. Although there was a significant drop in performance on one dataset, performance improves significantly for five datasets by up to 6.3%. For the Dependent multi-task model we observed an average improvement of 0.4% when compared to the single-task model. There were no significant drops in performance on any dataset, and performance improves significantly for six datasets by up to 1.1%. The dataset size experiments found that as dataset size decreased, the multi-output model's performance increased compared to the single-task model's. Using 50, 25 and 10% of the training data resulted in an average drop of approximately 3.4, 8 and 16.7% respectively for the single-task model but approximately 0.2, 3.0 and 9.8% for the multi-task model.
conclusionsOur results show that, on average, the multi-task models produced better NER results than the single-task models trained on a single NER dataset. We also found that Multi-task Learning is beneficial for small datasets. Across the various settings the improvements are significant, demonstrating the benefit of Multi-task Learning for this task.
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.