ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2022
Task reformulation and data-centric approach for Twitter medication name extraction.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automatically extracting medication names from tweets is challenging in the real world. There are many tweets; however, only a small proportion mentions medications. Thus, datasets are usually highly imbalanced. Moreover, the length of tweets is very short, which makes it hard to recognize medication names from the limited context. This paper proposes a data-centric approach for extracting medications in the BioCreative VII Track 3 (Automatic Extraction of Medication Names in Tweets). Our approach formulates the sequence labeling problem as text entailment and question-answer tasks. As a result, without using the dictionary and ensemble method, our single model achieved a Strict F1 of 0.77 (the official baseline system is 0.758, and the average performance of participants is 0.696). Moreover, combining the dictionary filtering and ensemble method achieved a Strict F1 of 0.804 and had the highest performance for all participants. Furthermore, domain-specific and task-specific pretrained language models, as well as data-centric approaches, are proposed for further improvements. Database URL https://competitions.codalab.org/competitions/23925 and https://biocreative.bioinformatics.udel.edu/tasks/biocreative-vii/track-3/.
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.