Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32324731›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2020

BioConceptVec: Creating and evaluating literature-based biomedical concept embeddings on a large scale.

Qingyu Chen, Kyubum Lee, Shankai Yan, Sun Kim, Chih-Hsuan Wei, Zhiyong Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Can Race-sensitive Biomedical Embeddings Improve Healthcare Predictive Models?AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Qingyu ChenNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6036-1516
Kyubum LeeNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2015-3939
Shankai YanNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0369-4979
Sun KimNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Chih-Hsuan WeiNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Zhiyong LuNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9998-916X

Funding

Named Entity Recognition and Relationship Extraction in BiomedicineZIALM091813 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LU, ZHIYONG · 2013 to 2022
$13.4M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A massive number of biological entities, such as genes and mutations, are mentioned in the biomedical literature. The capturing of the semantic relatedness of biological entities is vital to many biological applications, such as protein-protein interaction prediction and literature-based discovery. Concept embeddings-which involve the learning of vector representations of concepts using machine learning models-have been employed to capture the semantics of concepts. To develop concept embeddings, named-entity recognition (NER) tools are first used to identify and normalize concepts from the literature, and then different machine learning models are used to train the embeddings. Despite multiple attempts, existing biomedical concept embeddings generally suffer from suboptimal NER tools, small-scale evaluation, and limited availability. In response, we employed high-performance machine learning-based NER tools for concept recognition and trained our concept embeddings, BioConceptVec, via four different machine learning models on ~30 million PubMed abstracts. BioConceptVec covers over 400,000 biomedical concepts mentioned in the literature and is of the largest among the publicly available biomedical concept embeddings to date. To evaluate the validity and utility of BioConceptVec, we respectively performed two intrinsic evaluations (identifying related concepts based on drug-gene and gene-gene interactions) and two extrinsic evaluations (protein-protein interaction prediction and drug-drug interaction extraction), collectively using over 25 million instances from nine independent datasets (17 million instances from six intrinsic evaluation tasks and 8 million instances from three extrinsic evaluation tasks), which is, by far, the most comprehensive to our best knowledge. The intrinsic evaluation results demonstrate that BioConceptVec consistently has, by a large margin, better performance than existing concept embeddings in identifying similar and related concepts. More importantly, the extrinsic evaluation results demonstrate that using BioConceptVec with advanced deep learning models can significantly improve performance in downstream bioinformatics studies and biomedical text-mining applications. Our BioConceptVec embeddings and benchmarking datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/ncbi-nlp/BioConceptVec.

Indexed as

Deep LearningPublicationsAlgorithmsComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinData MiningDrug InteractionsElectronic Health RecordsHumansProtein Interaction MappingPubMedSemantics

Identifiers

PMID32324731
PMCPMC7237030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.