Cited by 131Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesTopic ModelingMachine Learning in Healthcare

Biomedical named entity recognition using BERT in the machine reading comprehension framework

Open access
Sun, Cong, Yang, Zhihao, Wang, Lei, Zhang, Yin, Lin, Hongfei, Wang, Jian·2021·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Recognition of biomedical entities from literature is a challenging research focus, which is the foundation for extracting a large amount of biomedical knowledge existing in unstructured texts into structured formats. Using the sequence labeling framework to implement biomedical named entity recognition (BioNER) is currently a conventional method. This method, however, often cannot take full advantage of the semantic information in the dataset, and the performance is not always satisfactory. In this work, instead of treating the BioNER task as a sequence labeling problem, we formulate it as a machine reading comprehension (MRC) problem. This formulation can introduce more prior knowledge utilizing well-designed queries, and no longer need decoding processes such as conditional random fields (CRF). We conduct experiments on six BioNER datasets, and the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Our method achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the BC4CHEMD, BC5CDR-Chem, BC5CDR-Disease, NCBI-Disease, BC2GM and JNLPBA datasets, achieving F1-scores of 92.92%, 94.19%, 87.83%, 90.04%, 85.48% and 78.93%, respectively.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2021.103799

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Conventional NLP approaches for temporal information extraction suffer from limited scalability and generalizability and struggle to interpret implicit or vague temporal expressions.

    “Conventional natural language processing (NLP) approaches suffer from limited scalability and generalizability, and struggle to interpret implicit or vague temporal expressions.”

    From TimeX: Phenotype Onset Extraction from Clinical Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction says traditional biomedical named-entity recognition relies on handcrafted, domain-specific features that are model- and entity-specific, which supports a limited-generalizability concern in that setting. It does not address scalability or the interpretation of implicit or vague temporal expressions in temporal information extraction; searches for those terms found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. G. Lample, M. Ballesteros, S. Subramanian, K. Kawakami, C. Dyer, Neural Architectures for Named Entity Recognition, in: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2016, pp. 260-270.
  2. A. Jagannatha, H. Yu, Structured prediction models for RNN based sequence labeling in clinical text, in: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2016, pp. 856-865.
  3. D.S. Sachan, P. Xie, M. Sachan, E.P. Xing, Effective Use of Bidirectional Language Modeling for Transfer Learning in Biomedical Named Entity Recognition, Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. (2018) 383-402.
  4. J.D. Lafferty, A. McCallum, F.C.N. Pereira, Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data, in: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, 2001, pp. 282-289.
  5. M. Kaneko, M. Komachi, Multi-Head Multi-Layer Attention to Deep Language Representations for Grammatical Error Detection, in: 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, 2019.
  6. B. Mccann, N.S. Keskar, C. Xiong, R. Socher, The Natural Language Decathlon: Multitask Learning as Question Answering, arXiv: Computation and Language, 2018.
  7. X. Li, F. Yin, Z. Sun, X. Li, A. Yuan, D. Chai, M. Zhou, J. Li, Entity-Relation Extraction as Multi-Turn Question Answering, in: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 1340-1350.
  8. Y. Shen, P.-S. Huang, J. Gao, W. Chen, ReasoNet: Learning to Stop Reading in Machine Comprehension, in: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2017, pp. 1047-1055.
  9. X. Li, J. Feng, Y. Meng, Q. Han, F. Wu, J. Li, A Unified MRC Framework for Named Entity Recognition, in: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020, pp. 5849-5859.
  10. J.-D. Kim, T. Ohta, Y. Tsuruoka, Y. Tateisi, N. Collier, Introduction to the Bio-Entity Recognition Task at JNLPBA, in: Proceedings of the International Joint Workshop on Natural Language Processing in Biomedicine and Its Applications, 2004, pp. 70-75.
  11. T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G.S. Corrado, J. Dean, Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality, in: Advances in neural information processing systems, 2013, pp. 3111-3119.
  12. T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, J. Dean, Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2013.
  13. J. Pennington, R. Socher, C. Manning, Glove: Global vectors for word representation, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2014, pp. 1532-1543.
  14. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A.N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, pp. 5998-6008.
  15. Y. Peng, S. Yan, Z. Lu, Transfer Learning in Biomedical Natural Language Processing: An Evaluation of BERT and ELMo on Ten Benchmarking Datasets, in: Proceedings of the 18th BioNLP Workshop and Shared Task, 2019, pp. 58-65.
  16. E. Alsentzer, J. Murphy, W. Boag, W.H. Weng, D. Jindi, T. Naumann, M. McDermott, Publicly Available Clinical BERT Embeddings, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop, 2019, pp. 72-78.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, C., Yang, Z., Wang, L., Zhang, Y., Lin, H., & Wang, J.
Affiliations
Dalian University of Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Yang, Zhihao
  • Wang, Lei
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
118
Pages
103799
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3157876196
Cited by
131
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 7
FWCI
7.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0901902)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
biomedical named entity recognition, machine reading comprehension, BERT, query design, prior knowledge, knowledge extraction
MeSH terms
Cognition, Semantics, Comprehension, Data Mining

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review