ArticleArXiv2023
Evaluation of GPT and BERT-based models on identifying proteinprotein interactions in biomedical text.
Article in ArXiv, 2023. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Detecting protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is crucial for understanding genetic mechanisms, disease pathogenesis, and drug design. However, with the fast-paced growth of biomedical literature, there is a growing need for automated and accurate extraction of PPIs to facilitate scientific knowledge discovery. Pre-trained language models, such as generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), have shown promising results in natural language processing (NLP) tasks. We evaluated the performance of PPI identification of multiple GPT and BERT models using three manually curated gold-standard corpora: Learning Language in Logic (LLL) with 164 PPIs in 77 sentences, Human Protein Reference Database with 163 PPIs in 145 sentences, and Interaction Extraction Performance Assessment with 335 PPIs in 486 sentences. BERT-based models achieved the best overall performance, with BioBERT achieving the highest recall (91.95%) and F1-score (86.84%) and PubMedBERT achieving the highest precision (85.25%). Interestingly, despite not being explicitly trained for biomedical texts, GPT-4 achieved commendable performance, comparable to the top-performing BERT models. It achieved a precision of 88.37%, a recall of 85.14%, and an F1-score of 86.49% on the LLL dataset. These results suggest that GPT models can effectively detect PPIs from text data, offering promising avenues for application in biomedical literature mining. Further research could explore how these models might be fine-tuned for even more specialized tasks within the biomedical domain.
Identifiers
38764593PMC11101131What 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.