The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative analysis of five protein-protein interaction corpora
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Growing interest in the application of natural language processing methods to biomedical text has led to an increasing number of corpora and methods targeting protein-protein interaction (PPI) extraction. However, there is no general consensus regarding PPI annotation and consequently resources are largely incompatible and methods are difficult to evaluate. RESULTS: We present the first comparative evaluation of the diverse PPI corpora, performing quantitative evaluation using two separate information extraction methods as well as detailed statistical and qualitative analyses of their properties. For the evaluation, we unify the corpus PPI annotations to a shared level of information, consisting of undirected, untyped binary interactions of non-static types with no identification of the words specifying the interaction, no negations, and no interaction certainty. We find that the F-score performance of a state-of-the-art PPI extraction method varies on average 19 percentage units and in some cases over 30 percentage units between the different evaluated corpora. The differences stemming from the choice of corpus can thus be substantially larger than differences between the performance of PPI extraction methods, which suggests definite limits on the ability to compare methods evaluated on different resources. We analyse a number of potential sources for these differences and identify factors explaining approximately half of the variance. We further suggest ways in which the difficulty of the PPI extraction tasks codified by different corpora can be determined to advance comparability. Our analysis also identifies points of agreement and disagreement in PPI corpus annotation that are rarely explicitly stated by the authors of the corpora. CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative analysis uncovers key similarities and differences between the diverse PPI corpora, thus taking an important step towards standardization. In the course of this study we have created a major practical contribution in converting the corpora into a shared format. The conversion software is freely available at http://mars.cs.utu.fi/PPICorpora.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Yao, J., Zhu, X., Jonnagaddala, J., Hawkins, N., & Huang, J. (2020) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2020.101789 · Cited by 522
The DDI corpus: An annotated corpus with pharmacological substances and drug–drug interactions
Herrero-Zazo, M., Segura-Bedmar, I., Martínez, P., & Declerck, T. (2013) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2013.07.011 · Cited by 478
BioWordVec, improving biomedical word embeddings with subword information and MeSH
Zhang, Y., Chen, Q., Yang, Z., Lin, H., & Lu, Z. (2019) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-019-0055-0 · Cited by 455
PKDE4J: Entity and relation extraction for public knowledge discovery
Song, M., Kim, W. C., Lee, D., Heo, G. E., & Kang, K. Y. (2015) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2015.08.008 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Pyysalo, S., Airola, A., Heimonen, J., Björne, J., Ginter, F., & Salakoski, T.
- Venue
- BMC Bioinformatics
- Published
- 2008-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- S3
- Pages
- S6-S6
- ISSN
- 1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2121844933
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative analysis of five protein-protein interaction corpora. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-9-s3-s6
- The paper
- Pyysalo, S., Airola, A., Heimonen, J., Björne, J., Ginter, F., & Salakoski, T. (2008). Comparative analysis of five protein-protein interaction corpora. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-s3-s6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.