Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38273979›Full record

ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2024

Contextual Word Embedding for Biomedical Knowledge Extraction: a Rapid Review and Case Study.

Dinithi Vithanage, Ping Yu, Lei Wang, Chao Deng

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Applications of Large Language Models in Pathology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dinithi VithanageSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5851-7158
Ping YuSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7910-9396
Lei WangSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0961-0441
Chao DengSchool of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1147-5741
University of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advancements in natural language processing (NLP), particularly contextual word embedding models, have improved knowledge extraction from biomedical and healthcare texts. However, limited comprehensive research compares these models. This study conducts a scoping review and compares the performance of the major contextual word embedding models for biomedical knowledge extraction. From 26 articles identified from Scopus, PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar between 2017 and 2021, 18 notable contextual word embedding models were identified. These include ELMo, BERT, BioBERT, BlueBERT, CancerBERT, DDS-BERT, RuBERT, LABSE, EhrBERT, MedBERT, Clinical BERT, Clinical BioBERT, Discharge Summary BERT, Discharge Summary BioBERT, GPT, GPT-2, GPT-3, and GPT2-Bio-Pt. A case study compared the performance of six representative models-ELMo, BERT, BioBERT, BlueBERT, Clinical BioBERT, and GPT-3-across text classification, named entity recognition, and question answering. The evaluation utilized datasets comprising biomedical text from tweets, NCBI, PubMed, and clinical notes sourced from two electronic health record datasets. Performance metrics, including accuracy and F1 score, were used. The results of this case study reveal that BioBERT performs the best in analyzing biomedical text, while Clinical BioBERT excels in analyzing clinical notes. These findings offer crucial insights into word embedding models for researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders utilizing NLP in biomedical and clinical document analysis. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41666-023-00157-y.

Indexed as

Biomedical textContextual word embedding modelsElectronic health recordsKnowledge extractionNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID38273979
PMCPMC10805696
OpenAlexW4390545867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.