Assessing the state of the art in biomedical relation extraction: overview of the BioCreative V chemical-disease relation (CDR) task
Open accessAbstract
Manually curating chemicals, diseases and their relationships is significantly important to biomedical research, but it is plagued by its high cost and the rapid growth of the biomedical literature. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in developing computational approaches for automatic chemical-disease relation (CDR) extraction. Despite these attempts, the lack of a comprehensive benchmarking dataset has limited the comparison of different techniques in order to assess and advance the current state-of-the-art. To this end, we organized a challenge task through BioCreative V to automatically extract CDRs from the literature. We designed two challenge tasks: disease named entity recognition (DNER) and chemical-induced disease (CID) relation extraction. To assist system development and assessment, we created a large annotated text corpus that consisted of human annotations of chemicals, diseases and their interactions from 1500 PubMed articles. 34 teams worldwide participated in the CDR task: 16 (DNER) and 18 (CID). The best systems achieved an F-score of 86.46% for the DNER task--a result that approaches the human inter-annotator agreement (0.8875)--and an F-score of 57.03% for the CID task, the highest results ever reported for such tasks. When combining team results via machine learning, the ensemble system was able to further improve over the best team results by achieving 88.89% and 62.80% in F-score for the DNER and CID task, respectively. Additionally, another novel aspect of our evaluation is to test each participating system's ability to return real-time results: the average response time for each team's DNER and CID web service systems were 5.6 and 9.3 s, respectively. Most teams used hybrid systems for their submissions based on machining learning. Given the level of participation and results, we found our task to be successful in engaging the text-mining research community, producing a large annotated corpus and improving the results of automatic disease recognition and CDR extraction. Database URL: http://www.biocreative.org/tasks/biocreative-v/track-3-cdr/.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
From previous studies on end-to-end relation extraction tasks, the performance in relation extraction tasks is lower than that in named entity recognition tasks.
“Second, from previous studies on end-to-end relation extraction tasks, the performance in relation extraction tasks is lower than that in named entity recognition tasks [22,23].”
From Family History Extraction From Synthetic Clinical Narratives Using Natural Language Processing: Overview and Evaluation of a Challenge Data Set and Solutions for the 2019 National NLP Clinical Challenges (n2c2)/Open Health Natural Language Processing (OHNLP) Competition (2021) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 198
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- [7]7. Kang,N., Singh,B., Bui,C. et al . (2014) Knowledge-based extraction of adverse drug events from biomedical text. BMC Bioinform ., 15(64), 1-8.
- [9]9. Gurulingappa,H., Mateen-Rajput,A. and Toldo,L. (2012) Extraction of potential adverse drug events from medical case reports. J. Biomed. Semant ., 3(15), 1-10.
- [14]14. Leaman, R., Wojtulewicz, L., Sullivan, R. et al . (2010) Towards internet-age pharmacovigilance: extracting adverse drug reactions from user posts to health-related social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Biomedical Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden. pp. 117-125.
- [14]14. DNorm. In: Proceedings of the CLEF 2013 Evaluation Labs and Workshop , Valencia, Spain.
- [20]20. Huang,C.C. and Lu,Z. (2015) Community challenges in biomedical text mining over 10 years: success, failure and the future. Brief. Bioinform ., 17(1), 132-144.
- [24]24. Li, J., Sun, Y., Johnson, R.J. et al . (2015) Annotating chemicals, diseases and their interactions in biomedical literature. In: Proceedings of the Fifth BioCreative Challenge Evaluation Workshop , Sevilla, Spain. pp. 173-182.
- [25]25. Leaman,R. and Gonzalez,G. (2008) BANNER: an executable survey of advances in biomedical named entity recognition. In: Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing , Fairmont Orchid, Hawaii, USA. pp. 652-663.
- [26]26. Burges, C., Shaked, T., Renshaw, E. et al . (2005) Learning to rank using gradient descent. In: International Conference on Machine Learning . ACM, Bonn, Germany. pp. 89-96.
- [27]27. Pradhan,S., Elhadad,N., South,B.R. et al . (2014) Evaluating the state of the art in disorder recognition and normalization of the clinical narrative. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc ., 22(1), 143-154.
- [30]30. Lafferty,J., McCallum,A. and Pereira,F. (2001) Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 01) , Bellevue, Washington, USA. pp. 282-289.
- Authors
- Wei, C.-H., Peng, Y., Leaman, R., Davis, A. P., Mattingly, C. J., Li, J., Wiegers, T. C., & Lu, Z.
- Affiliations
- National Center for Biotechnology Information (US)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Lu, Zhiyong
- ORCID
- Venue
- Database
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-01-01
- Volume
- 2016
- ISSN
- 1758-0463 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4799720
- OpenAlex
- W2335791510
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14
- FWCI
- 12.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Database (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01es014065-14)
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES019604, R01-ES014065, ES014065, R01ES019604)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Keywords
- biomedical text mining, annotated corpus, ensemble systems, inter-annotator agreement, PubMed articles
- MeSH terms
- Disease, Humans, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, Databases, Factual, Biomedical Research, 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