Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30755172›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

From POS tagging to dependency parsing for biomedical event extraction.

Dat Quoc Nguyen, Karin Verspoor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Dat Quoc NguyenSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. dqnguyen@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8214-2878
Karin VerspoorSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

ARC Discovery Project DP150101550ARC Linkage Project LP160101469
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the importance of relation or event extraction from biomedical research publications to support knowledge capture and synthesis, and the strong dependency of approaches to this information extraction task on syntactic information, it is valuable to understand which approaches to syntactic processing of biomedical text have the highest performance.

resultsWe perform an empirical study comparing state-of-the-art traditional feature-based and neural network-based models for two core natural language processing tasks of part-of-speech (POS) tagging and dependency parsing on two benchmark biomedical corpora, GENIA and CRAFT. To the best of our knowledge, there is no recent work making such comparisons in the biomedical context; specifically no detailed analysis of neural models on this data is available. Experimental results show that in general, the neural models outperform the feature-based models on two benchmark biomedical corpora GENIA and CRAFT. We also perform a task-oriented evaluation to investigate the influences of these models in a downstream application on biomedical event extraction, and show that better intrinsic parsing performance does not always imply better extrinsic event extraction performance.

conclusionWe have presented a detailed empirical study comparing traditional feature-based and neural network-based models for POS tagging and dependency parsing in the biomedical context, and also investigated the influence of parser selection for a biomedical event extraction downstream task. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS: We make the retrained models available at https://github.com/datquocnguyen/BioPosDep .

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchInformation Storage and RetrievalSpeechAlgorithmsHumansNatural Language ProcessingNeural Networks, ComputerPublicationsVocabularyBiomedical event extractionDependency parsingNeural networksPOS tagging

Identifiers

PMID30755172
PMCPMC6373122

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.