ArticleProceedings of the ... International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications. International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications2018
Document Retrieval for Biomedical Question Answering with Neural Sentence Matching.
Article in Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications. International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Literature Retrieval for Precision Medicine with Neural Matching and Faceted Summarization.Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2020Article
- Using FHIR to Construct a Corpus of Clinical Questions Annotated with Logical Forms and Answers.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Document retrieval (DR) forms an important component in end-to-end question-answering (QA) systems where particular answers are sought for well-formed questions. DR in the QA scenario is also useful by itself even without a more involved natural language processing component to extract exact answers from the retrieved documents. This latter step may simply be done by humans like in traditional search engines granted the retrieved documents contain the answer. In this paper, we take advantage of datasets made available through the BioASQ end-to-end QA shared task series and build an effective biomedical DR system that relies on relevant answer snippets in the BioASQ training datasets. At the core of our approach is a question-answer sentence matching neural network that learns a measure of relevance of a sentence to an input question in the form of a matching score. In addition to this matching score feature, we also exploit two auxiliary features for scoring document relevance: the name of the journal in which a document is published and the presence/absence of semantic relations (subject-predicate-object triples) in a candidate answer sentence connecting entities mentioned in the question. We rerank our baseline sequential dependence model scores using these three additional features weighted via adaptive random research and other learning-to-rank methods. Our full system placed 2nd in the final batch of Phase A (DR) of task B (QA) in BioASQ 2018. Our ablation experiments highlight the significance of the neural matching network component in the full system.
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.