Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29650041›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2018

Deep learning meets ontologies: experiments to anchor the cardiovascular disease ontology in the biomedical literature.

Mercedes Arguello Casteleiro, George Demetriou, Warren Read, Maria Jesus Fernandez Prieto, Nava Maroto, Diego Maseda Fernandez, Goran Nenadic, Julie Klein, John Keane, Robert Stevens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical concept extraction: A methodology review.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

10 authors.

Mercedes Arguello CasteleiroSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
George DemetriouSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Warren ReadSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Maria Jesus Fernandez PrietoSalford Languages, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Nava MarotoDepartamento de Lingüística Aplicada a la Ciencia y a la Tecnología, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Diego Maseda FernandezMidcheshire Hospital Foundation Trust NHS, Crewe, England, UK.
Goran NenadicSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Julie KleinInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM) U1048, Toulouse, France.
John KeaneSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Robert StevensSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Robert.Stevens@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomatic identification of term variants or acceptable alternative free-text terms for gene and protein names from the millions of biomedical publications is a challenging task. Ontologies, such as the Cardiovascular Disease Ontology (CVDO), capture domain knowledge in a computational form and can provide context for gene/protein names as written in the literature. This study investigates: 1) if word embeddings from Deep Learning algorithms can provide a list of term variants for a given gene/protein of interest; and 2) if biological knowledge from the CVDO can improve such a list without modifying the word embeddings created.

methodsWe have manually annotated 105 gene/protein names from 25 PubMed titles/abstracts and mapped them to 79 unique UniProtKB entries corresponding to gene and protein classes from the CVDO. Using more than 14 M PubMed articles (titles and available abstracts), word embeddings were generated with CBOW and Skip-gram. We setup two experiments for a synonym detection task, each with four raters, and 3672 pairs of terms (target term and candidate term) from the word embeddings created. For Experiment I, the target terms for 64 UniProtKB entries were those that appear in the titles/abstracts; Experiment II involves 63 UniProtKB entries and the target terms are a combination of terms from PubMed titles/abstracts with terms (i.e. increased context) from the CVDO protein class expressions and labels.

resultsIn Experiment I, Skip-gram finds term variants (full and/or partial) for 89% of the 64 UniProtKB entries, while CBOW finds term variants for 67%. In Experiment II (with the aid of the CVDO), Skip-gram finds term variants for 95% of the 63 UniProtKB entries, while CBOW finds term variants for 78%. Combining the results of both experiments, Skip-gram finds term variants for 97% of the 79 UniProtKB entries, while CBOW finds term variants for 81%.

conclusionsThis study shows performance improvements for both CBOW and Skip-gram on a gene/protein synonym detection task by adding knowledge formalised in the CVDO and without modifying the word embeddings created. Hence, the CVDO supplies context that is effective in inducing term variability for both CBOW and Skip-gram while reducing ambiguity. Skip-gram outperforms CBOW and finds more pertinent term variants for gene/protein names annotated from the scientific literature.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesCardiovascular DiseasesDeep LearningHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationPubMedROC CurveCardiovascular disease ontologyCBOWDeep learningOntologyPubMedSemantic deep learningSkip-gram

Identifiers

PMID29650041
PMCPMC5896136

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.