Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33372589›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020

Dependency parsing of biomedical text with BERT.

Jenna Kanerva, Filip Ginter, Sampo Pyysalo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Jenna KanervaTurkuNLP Group, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. jmnybl@utu.fi.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4580-5366
Filip GinterTurkuNLP Group, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5484-6103
Sampo PyysaloTurkuNLP Group, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6279-5000

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background: Syntactic analysis, or parsing, is a key task in natural language processing and a required component for many text mining approaches. In recent years, Universal Dependencies (UD) has emerged as the leading formalism for dependency parsing. While a number of recent tasks centering on UD have substantially advanced the state of the art in multilingual parsing, there has been only little study of parsing texts from specialized domains such as biomedicine.

methods: We explore the application of state-of-the-art neural dependency parsing methods to biomedical text using the recently introduced CRAFT-SA shared task dataset. The CRAFT-SA task broadly follows the UD representation and recent UD task conventions, allowing us to fine-tune the UD-compatible Turku Neural Parser and UDify neural parsers to the task. We further evaluate the effect of transfer learning using a broad selection of BERT models, including several models pre-trained specifically for biomedical text processing.

results: We find that recently introduced neural parsing technology is capable of generating highly accurate analyses of biomedical text, substantially improving on the best performance reported in the original CRAFT-SA shared task. We also find that initialization using a deep transfer learning model pre-trained on in-domain texts is key to maximizing the performance of the parsing methods.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchData MiningSoftwareHumansLanguageModels, StatisticalNatural Language ProcessingCRAFTDeep learningParsing

Identifiers

PMID33372589
PMCPMC7771067

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.