ArticlePloS one2023
A study of deep active learning methods to reduce labelling efforts in biomedical relation extraction.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Semantic Similarity Search Approach to Extract Exemplars of Stigmatizing and Positive Language in Obstetric Clinical Notes: Exploratory Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Interpretable multi-model deep learning framework for automated four-class diagnosis of ocular toxoplasmosis using fundus imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Host-Microbe Interactions: Prospects of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Technologies in Animal Viral Disease Management.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- DUVEL: an active-learning annotated biomedical corpus for the recognition of oligogenic combinations.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automatic biomedical relation extraction (bioRE) is an essential task in biomedical research in order to generate high-quality labelled data that can be used for the development of innovative predictive methods. However, building such fully labelled, high quality bioRE data sets of adequate size for the training of state-of-the-art relation extraction models is hindered by an annotation bottleneck due to limitations on time and expertise of researchers and curators. We show here how Active Learning (AL) plays an important role in resolving this issue and positively improve bioRE tasks, effectively overcoming the labelling limits inherent to a data set. Six different AL strategies are benchmarked on seven bioRE data sets, using PubMedBERT as the base model, evaluating their area under the learning curve (AULC) as well as intermediate results measurements. The results demonstrate that uncertainty-based strategies, such as Least-Confident or Margin Sampling, are statistically performing better in terms of F1-score, accuracy and precision, than other types of AL strategies. However, in terms of recall, a diversity-based strategy, called Core-set, outperforms all strategies. AL strategies are shown to reduce the annotation need (in order to reach a performance at par with training on all data), from 6% to 38%, depending on the data set; with Margin Sampling and Least-Confident Sampling strategies moreover obtaining the best AULCs compared to the Random Sampling baseline. We show through the experiments the importance of using AL methods to reduce the amount of labelling needed to construct high-quality data sets leading to optimal performance of deep learning models. The code and data sets to reproduce all the results presented in the article are available at https://github.com/oligogenic/Deep_active_learning_bioRE.
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.