ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2018
Improving precision in concept normalization.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- PPR-SSM: personalized PageRank and semantic similarity measures for entity linking.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
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
Most natural language processing applications exhibit a trade-off between precision and recall. In some use cases for natural language processing, there are reasons to prefer to tilt that trade-off toward high precision. Relying on the Zipfian distribution of false positive results, we describe a strategy for increasing precision, using a variety of both pre-processing and post-processing methods. They draw on both knowledge-based and frequentist approaches to modeling language. Based on an existing high-performance biomedical concept recognition pipeline and a previously published manually annotated corpus, we apply this hybrid rationalist/empiricist strategy to concept normalization for eight different ontologies. Which approaches did and did not improve precision varied widely between the ontologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29218915PMC5730334What 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.