ArticleIEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions2022
How Do Your Biomedical Named Entity Recognition Models Generalize to Novel Entities?
Article in IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- An end-to-end system for explainable clinical coding across languages and diverse medical data sources.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Integrating curation into scientific publishing to train AI models.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- TrialSieve: A Comprehensive Biomedical Information Extraction Framework for PICO, Meta-Analysis, and Drug Repurposing.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Unlocking the Secrets Behind Advanced Artificial Intelligence Language Models in Deidentifying Chinese-English Mixed Clinical Text: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- NEREL-BIO: a dataset of biomedical abstracts annotated with nested named entities.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Surgical procedure long terms recognition from Chinese literature incorporating structural feature.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Full-text chemical identification with improved generalizability and tagging consistency.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of biomedical literature on new biomedical concepts is rapidly increasing, which necessitates a reliable biomedical named entity recognition (BioNER) model for identifying new and unseen entity mentions. However, it is questionable whether existing models can effectively handle them. In this work, we systematically analyze the three types of recognition abilities of BioNER models: memorization, synonym generalization, and concept generalization. We find that although current best models achieve state-of-the-art performance on benchmarks based on overall performance, they have limitations in identifying synonyms and new biomedical concepts, indicating they are overestimated in terms of their generalization abilities. We also investigate failure cases of models and identify several difficulties in recognizing unseen mentions in biomedical literature as follows: (1) models tend to exploit dataset biases, which hinders the models' abilities to generalize, and (2) several biomedical names have novel morphological patterns with weak name regularity, and models fail to recognize them. We apply a statistics-based debiasing method to our problem as a simple remedy and show the improvement in generalization to unseen mentions. We hope that our analyses and findings would be able to facilitate further research into the generalization capabilities of NER models in a domain where their reliability is of utmost importance.
Indexed as
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.