Cargando…

Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition

BACKGROUND: Text mining in the biomedical domain is receiving increasing attention. A key component of this process is named entity recognition (NER). Generally speaking, two annotated corpora, GENIA and GENETAG, are most frequently used for training and testing biomedical named entity recognition (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tsai, Richard Tzong-Han, Wu, Shih-Hung, Chou, Wen-Chi, Lin, Yu-Chun, He, Ding, Hsiang, Jieh, Sung, Ting-Yi, Hsu, Wen-Lian
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16504116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-92
_version_ 1782127021890994176
author Tsai, Richard Tzong-Han
Wu, Shih-Hung
Chou, Wen-Chi
Lin, Yu-Chun
He, Ding
Hsiang, Jieh
Sung, Ting-Yi
Hsu, Wen-Lian
author_facet Tsai, Richard Tzong-Han
Wu, Shih-Hung
Chou, Wen-Chi
Lin, Yu-Chun
He, Ding
Hsiang, Jieh
Sung, Ting-Yi
Hsu, Wen-Lian
author_sort Tsai, Richard Tzong-Han
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Text mining in the biomedical domain is receiving increasing attention. A key component of this process is named entity recognition (NER). Generally speaking, two annotated corpora, GENIA and GENETAG, are most frequently used for training and testing biomedical named entity recognition (Bio-NER) systems. JNLPBA and BioCreAtIvE are two major Bio-NER tasks using these corpora. Both tasks take different approaches to corpus annotation and use different matching criteria to evaluate system performance. This paper details these differences and describes alternative criteria. We then examine the impact of different criteria and annotation schemes on system performance by retesting systems participated in the above two tasks. RESULTS: To analyze the difference between JNLPBA's and BioCreAtIvE's evaluation, we conduct Experiment 1 to evaluate the top four JNLPBA systems using BioCreAtIvE's classification scheme. We then compare them with the top four BioCreAtIvE systems. Among them, three systems participated in both tasks, and each has an F-score lower on JNLPBA than on BioCreAtIvE. In Experiment 2, we apply hypothesis testing and correlation coefficient to find alternatives to BioCreAtIvE's evaluation scheme. It shows that right-match and left-match criteria have no significant difference with BioCreAtIvE. In Experiment 3, we propose a customized relaxed-match criterion that uses right match and merges JNLPBA's five NE classes into two, which achieves an F-score of 81.5%. In Experiment 4, we evaluate a range of five matching criteria from loose to strict on the top JNLPBA system and examine the percentage of false negatives. Our experiment gives the relative change in precision, recall and F-score as matching criteria are relaxed. CONCLUSION: In many applications, biomedical NEs could have several acceptable tags, which might just differ in their left or right boundaries. However, most corpora annotate only one of them. In our experiment, we found that right match and left match can be appropriate alternatives to JNLPBA and BioCreAtIvE's matching criteria. In addition, our relaxed-match criterion demonstrates that users can define their own relaxed criteria that correspond more realistically to their application requirements.
format Text
id pubmed-1402329
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-14023292006-04-21 Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition Tsai, Richard Tzong-Han Wu, Shih-Hung Chou, Wen-Chi Lin, Yu-Chun He, Ding Hsiang, Jieh Sung, Ting-Yi Hsu, Wen-Lian BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: Text mining in the biomedical domain is receiving increasing attention. A key component of this process is named entity recognition (NER). Generally speaking, two annotated corpora, GENIA and GENETAG, are most frequently used for training and testing biomedical named entity recognition (Bio-NER) systems. JNLPBA and BioCreAtIvE are two major Bio-NER tasks using these corpora. Both tasks take different approaches to corpus annotation and use different matching criteria to evaluate system performance. This paper details these differences and describes alternative criteria. We then examine the impact of different criteria and annotation schemes on system performance by retesting systems participated in the above two tasks. RESULTS: To analyze the difference between JNLPBA's and BioCreAtIvE's evaluation, we conduct Experiment 1 to evaluate the top four JNLPBA systems using BioCreAtIvE's classification scheme. We then compare them with the top four BioCreAtIvE systems. Among them, three systems participated in both tasks, and each has an F-score lower on JNLPBA than on BioCreAtIvE. In Experiment 2, we apply hypothesis testing and correlation coefficient to find alternatives to BioCreAtIvE's evaluation scheme. It shows that right-match and left-match criteria have no significant difference with BioCreAtIvE. In Experiment 3, we propose a customized relaxed-match criterion that uses right match and merges JNLPBA's five NE classes into two, which achieves an F-score of 81.5%. In Experiment 4, we evaluate a range of five matching criteria from loose to strict on the top JNLPBA system and examine the percentage of false negatives. Our experiment gives the relative change in precision, recall and F-score as matching criteria are relaxed. CONCLUSION: In many applications, biomedical NEs could have several acceptable tags, which might just differ in their left or right boundaries. However, most corpora annotate only one of them. In our experiment, we found that right match and left match can be appropriate alternatives to JNLPBA and BioCreAtIvE's matching criteria. In addition, our relaxed-match criterion demonstrates that users can define their own relaxed criteria that correspond more realistically to their application requirements. BioMed Central 2006-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC1402329/ /pubmed/16504116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-92 Text en Copyright © 2006 Tsai et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tsai, Richard Tzong-Han
Wu, Shih-Hung
Chou, Wen-Chi
Lin, Yu-Chun
He, Ding
Hsiang, Jieh
Sung, Ting-Yi
Hsu, Wen-Lian
Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition
title Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition
title_full Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition
title_fullStr Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition
title_full_unstemmed Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition
title_short Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition
title_sort various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16504116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-92
work_keys_str_mv AT tsairichardtzonghan variouscriteriaintheevaluationofbiomedicalnamedentityrecognition
AT wushihhung variouscriteriaintheevaluationofbiomedicalnamedentityrecognition
AT chouwenchi variouscriteriaintheevaluationofbiomedicalnamedentityrecognition
AT linyuchun variouscriteriaintheevaluationofbiomedicalnamedentityrecognition
AT heding variouscriteriaintheevaluationofbiomedicalnamedentityrecognition
AT hsiangjieh variouscriteriaintheevaluationofbiomedicalnamedentityrecognition
AT sungtingyi variouscriteriaintheevaluationofbiomedicalnamedentityrecognition
AT hsuwenlian variouscriteriaintheevaluationofbiomedicalnamedentityrecognition