Cargando…
BioCreAtIvE Task1A: entity identification with a stochastic tagger
BACKGROUND: Our approach to Task 1A was inspired by Tanabe and Wilbur's ABGene system [1,2]. Like Tanabe and Wilbur, we approached the problem as one of part-of-speech tagging, adding a GENE tag to the standard tag set. Where their system uses the Brill tagger, we used TnT, the Trigrams 'n...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2005
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1869018/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15960838 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-6-S1-S4 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Our approach to Task 1A was inspired by Tanabe and Wilbur's ABGene system [1,2]. Like Tanabe and Wilbur, we approached the problem as one of part-of-speech tagging, adding a GENE tag to the standard tag set. Where their system uses the Brill tagger, we used TnT, the Trigrams 'n' Tags HMM-based part-of-speech tagger [3]. Based on careful error analysis, we implemented a set of post-processing rules to correct both false positives and false negatives. We participated in both the open and the closed divisions; for the open division, we made use of data from NCBI. RESULTS: Our base system without post-processing achieved a precision and recall of 68.0% and 77.2%, respectively, giving an F-measure of 72.3%. The full system with post-processing achieved a precision and recall of 80.3% and 80.5% giving an F-measure of 80.4%. We achieved a slight improvement (F-measure = 80.9%) by employing a dictionary-based post-processing step for the open division. We placed third in both the open and the closed division. CONCLUSION: Our results show that a part-of-speech tagger can be augmented with post-processing rules resulting in an entity identification system that competes well with other approaches. |
---|