Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36040145›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2022

No means 'No': a non-improper modeling approach, with embedded speculative context.

Priya Tiwary, Akshayraj Madhubalan, Amit Gautam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Priya TiwarySaama AI Research Lab, Pune 411057, India.ORCID 0000-0003-4488-6053
Akshayraj MadhubalanSaama AI Research Lab, Pune 411057, India.
Amit GautamSaama AI Research Lab, Pune 411057, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationThe medical data are complex in nature as terms that appear in records usually appear in different contexts. Through this article, we investigate various bio model's embeddings (BioBERT, BioELECTRA and PubMedBERT) on their understanding of 'negation and speculation context' wherein we found that these models were unable to differentiate 'negated context' versus 'non-negated context'. To measure the understanding of models, we used cosine similarity scores of negated sentence embeddings versus non-negated sentence embeddings pairs. For improving these models, we introduce a generic super tuning approach to enhance the embeddings on 'negation and speculation context' by utilizing a synthesized dataset.

resultsAfter super-tuning the models, we can see that the model's embeddings are now understanding negative and speculative contexts much better. Furthermore, we fine-tuned the super-tuned models on various tasks and we found that the model has outperformed the previous models and achieved state-of-the-art on negation, speculation cue and scope detection tasks on BioScope abstracts and Sherlock dataset. We also confirmed that our approach had a very minimal trade-off in the performance of the model in other tasks like natural language inference after super-tuning. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code, data and the models are available at: https://github.com/comprehend/engg-ai-research/tree/uncertainty-super-tuning.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingSoftwareLanguage

Identifiers

PMID36040145
PMCPMC9563701

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.