Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39302686›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024

HunFlair2 in a cross-corpus evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition and normalization tools.

Mario Sänger, Samuele Garda, Xing David Wang, Leon Weber-Genzel, Pia Droop, Benedikt Fuchs, Alan Akbik, Ulf Leser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Domain-specific embeddings uncover latent genetics knowledge.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Towards discovery: an end-to-end system for uncovering novel biomedical relations.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
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

8 authors.

Mario SängerDepartment of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 10099, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2950-2587
Samuele GardaDepartment of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 10099, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-8234-8299
Xing David WangDepartment of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 10099, Germany.
Leon Weber-GenzelCenter for Information and Language Processing (CIS), Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, München 80539, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2499-472X
Pia DroopDepartment of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 10099, Germany.
Benedikt FuchsResearch Industrial Systems Engineering (RISE) Forschungs-, Entwicklungs- und Großprojektberatung GmbH, Schwechat 2320, Austria.
Alan AkbikDepartment of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 10099, Germany.
Ulf LeserDepartment of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 10099, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationWith the exponential growth of the life sciences literature, biomedical text mining (BTM) has become an essential technology for accelerating the extraction of insights from publications. The identification of entities in texts, such as diseases or genes, and their normalization, i.e. grounding them in knowledge base, are crucial steps in any BTM pipeline to enable information aggregation from multiple documents. However, tools for these two steps are rarely applied in the same context in which they were developed. Instead, they are applied "in the wild," i.e. on application-dependent text collections from moderately to extremely different from those used for training, varying, e.g. in focus, genre or text type. This raises the question whether the reported performance, usually obtained by training and evaluating on different partitions of the same corpus, can be trusted for downstream applications.

resultsHere, we report on the results of a carefully designed cross-corpus benchmark for entity recognition and normalization, where tools were applied systematically to corpora not used during their training. Based on a survey of 28 published systems, we selected five, based on predefined criteria like feature richness and availability, for an in-depth analysis on three publicly available corpora covering four entity types. Our results present a mixed picture and show that cross-corpus performance is significantly lower than the in-corpus performance. HunFlair2, the redesigned and extended successor of the HunFlair tool, showed the best performance on average, being closely followed by PubTator Central. Our results indicate that users of BTM tools should expect a lower performance than the original published one when applying tools in "the wild" and show that further research is necessary for more robust BTM tools. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All our models are integrated into the Natural Language Processing (NLP) framework flair: https://github.com/flairNLP/flair. Code to reproduce our results is available at: https://github.com/hu-ner/hunflair2-experiments.

Indexed as

Data MiningComputational BiologyHumansNatural Language ProcessingSoftware

Identifiers

PMID39302686
PMCPMC11453098

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.