Search

Summary: Second use of clinical data commonly involves annotating biomedical text with terminologies and ontologies. The National Center for Biomedical Ontology Annotator is a frequently used annotation service, originally designed for biomedical data, but not very suitable for clinical text annotation. In order to add new functionalities to the NCBO Annotator without hosting or modifying the original Web service, we have designed a proxy architecture that enables seamless extensions by pre-processing of the input text and parameters, and post processing of the annotations. We have then implemented enhanced functionalities for annotating and indexing free text such as: scoring, detection of context (negation, experiencer, temporality), new output formats and coarse-grained concept recognition (with UMLS Semantic Groups). In this paper, we present the NCBO Annotator+, a Web service which incorporates these new functionalities as well as a small set of evaluation results for concept recognition and clinical context detection on two standard evaluation tasks (Clef eHealth 2017, SemEval 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivation: Figures and tables in biomedical literature record vast amounts of important experiment results. In scientific papers, for example, quantitative trait locus (QTL) information is usually presented in tables. However, most of the popular text-mining methods focus on extracting knowledge from unstructured free text. As far as we know, there are no published works on mining tables in biomedical literature. In this article, we propose a method to extract QTL information from tables and plain text found in literature. Heterogeneous and complex tables were converted into a structured database, combined with information extracted from plain text. Our method could greatly reduce labor burdens involved with database curation. Results: We applied our method on a soybean QTL database curation, from which 2278 records were extracted from 228 papers with a precision rate of 96.9% and a recall rate of 83.3%, F value for the method is 89.6%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivation: While text mining technologies for biomedical research have gained popularity as a way to take advantage of the explosive growth of information in text form in biomedical papers, selecting appropriate natural language processing (NLP) tools is still difficult for researchers who are not familiar with recent advances in NLP. This article provides a comparative evaluation of several state-of-the-art natural language parsers, focusing on the task of extracting protein–protein interaction (PPI) from biomedical papers. We measure how each parser, and its output representation, contributes to accuracy improvement when the parser is used as a component in a PPI system. Results: All the parsers attained improvements in accuracy of PPI extraction. The levels of accuracy obtained with these different parsers vary slightly, while differences in parsing speed are larger. The best accuracy in this work was obtained when we combined Miyao and Tsujiis Enju parser and Charniak and Johnsons reranking parser, and the accuracy is better than the state-of-the-art results on the same data. Availability: The PPI extraction system used in this work (AkanePPI) is available online at http://www-tsujii.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/-100downloads/downloads.cgi. The evaluated parsers are also available online from each developers site. Contact: yusuke@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]