CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 17Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesTopic ModelingMachine Learning in Healthcare

Biomedical Mention Disambiguation using a Deep Learning Approach

Open access
Wei, Chih-Hsuan, Lee, Kyubum, Leaman, Robert, Lu, Zhiyong·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1909.10416arXiv 1909.10416
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Automatically locating named entities in natural language text - named entity recognition - is an important task in the biomedical domain. Many named entity mentions are ambiguous between several bioconcept types, however, causing text spans to be annotated as more than one type when simultaneously recognizing multiple entity types. The straightforward solution is a rule-based approach applying a priority order based on the precision of each entity tagger (from highest to lowest). While this method is straightforward and useful, imprecise disambiguation remains a significant source of error. We address this issue by generating a partially labeled corpus of ambiguous concept mentions. We first collect named entity mentions from multiple human-curated databases (e.g. CTDbase, gene2pubmed), then correlate them with the text mined span from PubTator to provide the context where the mention appears. Our corpus contains more than 3 million concept mentions that ambiguous between one or more concept types in PubTator (about 3% of all mentions). We approached this task as a classification problem and developed a deep learning-based method which uses the semantics of the span being classified and the surrounding words to identify the most likely bioconcept type. More specifically, we develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) and along short-term memory (LSTM) network to respectively handle the semantic syntax features, then concatenate these within a fully connected layer for final classification. The priority ordering rule-based approach demonstrated F1-scores of 71.29% (micro-averaged) and 41.19% (macro-averaged), while the new disambiguation method demonstrated F1-scores of 91.94% (micro-averaged) and 85.42% (macro-averaged), a very substantial increase.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1909.10416

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.

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?

  • This relevance filtering step is critical, as biomedical concepts frequently exhibit high ambiguity in free text, and exact string-matching approaches like SKiM frequently retrieve abstracts containing ambiguous or irrelevant matches.

    “This relevance filtering step is critical, as biomedical concepts frequently exhibit high ambiguity in free text [37], and exact string-matching approaches like SKiM frequently retrieve abstracts containing ambiguous or irrelevant matches [8].”

    From SKiM-GPT: combining biomedical literature-based discovery with large language model hypothesis evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. J. Hakenberg et al., "The GNAT library for local and remote gene mention normalization," Bioinformatics, vol. 27, no. 19, pp. 2769-2771, 2011.
  2. R. Leaman and G. Gonzalez, "BANNER: an executable survey of advances in biomedical named entity recognition," in Biocomputing 2008: World Scientific, 2008, pp. 652-663.
  3. R. Leaman, R. I. Doğan, and Z. Lu, "DNorm: disease name normalization with pairwise learning to rank," Bioinformatics, vol. 29, no. 22, pp. 2909-2917, 2013.
  4. R. Leaman and Z. Lu, "TaggerOne: joint named entity recognition and normalization with semi-Markov Model," Bioinformatics, vol. 32, no. 18, pp. 2839-2846, 2016.
  5. R. Leaman, C.-H. Wei, and Z. Lu, "tmChem: a high performance approach for chemical named entity recognition and normalization," Journal of cheminformatics, vol. 7, no. supplement 1, 2015.
  6. T. Rocktäschel, M. Weidlich, and U. Leser, "ChemSpot: a hybrid system for chemical named entity recognition," Bioinformatics, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1633-1640, 2012.
  7. M. Gerner, G. Nenadic, and C. M. Bergman, "LINNAEUS: A species name identification system for biomedical literature," BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 11, p. 85, 2010.
  8. C.-H. Wei, H.-Y. Kao, and Z. Lu, "SR4GN: a species recognition software tool for gene normalization," PloS one, vol. 7, no. 6, p. e38460 2012.
  9. J. M. Cejuela et al., "nala: text mining natural language mutation mentions," Bioinformatics, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 1852-1858, 2017.
  10. C.-H. Wei, B. R. Harris, H.-Y. Kao, and Z. Lu, "tmVar: A text mining approach for extracting sequence variants in biomedical literature," Bioinformatics, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 1433-1439, 2013.
  11. C.-H. Wei, L. Phan, J. Feltz, R. Maiti, T. Hefferon, and Z. Lu, "tmVar 2.0: integrating genomic variant information from literature with dbSNP and ClinVar for precision medicine," Bioinformatics, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 80-87, 2017.
  12. H. Stachelscheid et al., "CellFinder: a cell data repository," Nucleic acids research, vol. 42, no. D1, pp. D950-D958, 2014.
  13. D. Campos, J. Lourenço, S. Matos, and J. L. Oliveira, "Egas: a collaborative and interactive document curation platform," Database, vol. 2014, 2014.
  14. F. Rinaldi, G. Schneider, K. Kaljurand, S. Clematide, T. Vachon, and M. Romacker, "Ontogene in biocreative ii. 5," IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (TCBB), vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 472-480, 2010.
  15. P. Thomas, J. Starlinger, A. Vowinkel, S. Arzt, and U. Leser, "GeneView: a comprehensive semantic search engine for PubMed," Nucleic acids research, vol. 40, no. W1, pp. W585-W591, 2012.
  16. C.-H. Wei, H.-Y. Kao, and Z. Lu, "PubTator: a Web-based text mining tool for assisting Biocuration," Nucleic acids research, vol. 41, no. W1, pp. W518-W522, 2013.
  17. S. Sohn, D. C. Comeau, W. Kim, and W. J. Wilbur, "Abbreviation definition identification based on automatic precision estimates," BMC bioinformatics, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 402, 2008.
  18. C. Arighi et al., "Bio-ID track overview," annotation, vol. 501, p. 1, 2017.
  19. C.-H. Wei et al., "Overview of the BioCreative V chemical disease relation (CDR) task," in Proceedings of the fifth BioCreative challenge evaluation workshop, 2015, pp. 154-166.
  20. Z. Lu et al., "The gene normalization task in BioCreative III," BMC bioinformatics, vol. 12, no. 8, p. S2, 2011.
  21. L. Tanabe, N. Xie, L. H. Thom, W. Matten, and W. J. Wilbur, "GENETAG: a tagged corpus for gene/protein named entity recognition," BMC bioinformatics, vol. 6, no. 1, p. S3, 2005.
  22. J. Li et al., "BioCreative V CDR task corpus: a resource for chemical disease relation extraction," Database, vol. 2016, 2016.
  23. Y. Kim, "Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification," arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882, 2014. · arXiv
  24. S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, "Long short-term memory," Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735-1780, 1997.
  25. C. E. Lipscomb, "Medical subject headings (MeSH)," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, vol. 88, no. 3, p. 265, 2000.
  26. N. R. Coordinators, "Database resources of the national center for biotechnology information," Nucleic acids research, vol. 46, no. Database issue, p. D8, 2018.
  27. G. R. Brown et al., "Gene: a gene-centered information resource at NCBI," Nucleic acids research, vol. 43, no. D1, pp. D36-D42, 2014.
  28. R. Nigam et al., "Rat Genome Database: a unique resource for rat, human, and mouse quantitative trait locus data," Physiological genomics, vol. 45, no. 18, pp. 809-816, 2013.
  29. A. Chatr-Aryamontri et al., "The BioGRID interaction database: 2017 update," Nucleic acids research, vol. 45, no. D1, pp. D369-D379, 2017.
  30. S. Federhen, "The NCBI taxonomy database," Nucleic acids research, vol. 40, no. D1, pp. D136-D143, 2011.
  31. I. K. Dhammi and S. Kumar, "Medical subject headings (MeSH) terms," Indian journal of orthopaedics, vol. 48, no. 5, p. 443, 2014.
  32. L. Ruzicka et al., "ZFIN, The zebrafish model organism database: Updates and new directions," genesis, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 498-509, 2015.
  33. M. J. Landrum et al., "ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence," Nucleic acids research, vol. 46, no. D1, pp. D1062-D1067, 2017.
  34. K. M. Wong et al., "The dbGaP data browser: a new tool for browsing dbGaP controlled-access genomic data," Nucleic acids research, vol. 45, no. D1, pp. D819-D826, 2016.
  35. S. T. Sherry et al., "dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation," Nucleic acids research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 308-311, 2001.
  36. J. MacArthur et al., "The new NHGRI-EBI Catalog of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS Catalog)," Nucleic acids research, vol. 45, no. D1, pp. D896-D901, 2016.
  37. T. Keshava Prasad et al., "Human protein reference database-2009 update," Nucleic acids research, vol. 37, no. suppl_1, pp. D767-D772, 2008.
  38. A. Bairoch, "The cellosaurus, a cell-line knowledge resource," Journal of biomolecular techniques: JBT, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 25, 2018.
  39. C. Arighi et al., "Bio-ID track overview," Cell, vol. 482, no. 7310, p. 376, 2017.
  40. T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G. S. Corrado, and J. Dean, "Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality," in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2013, pp. 3111-3119.
  41. K. Nigam, J. Lafferty, and A. McCallum, "Using maximum entropy for text classification," in IJCAI-99 workshop on machine learning for information filtering, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 61-67.
  42. J. Lee et al., "BioBERT: pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining," arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08746, 2019. · arXiv
  43. C.-H. Wei, A. Allot, R. Leaman, and Z. Lu, "PubTator Central: Automated Concept Annotation for Biomedical Full Text Articles," Nucleic acids research, no. web server issue, p. in press, 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, C.-H., Lee, K., Leaman, R., & Lu, Z.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Pages
307-313
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1909.10416
arXiv
1909.10416
OpenAlex
W2973105206
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
FWCI
8.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics (ACM-BCB) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (public-domain)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine
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, PubTator, convolutional neural networks, LSTM, multi-label classification, text 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