↓ Skip to main content

Making adjustments to event annotations for improved biological event extraction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Making adjustments to event annotations for improved biological event extraction
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13326-016-0094-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seung-Cheol Baek, Jong C. Park

Abstract

Current state-of-the-art approaches to biological event extraction train statistical models in a supervised manner on corpora annotated with event triggers and event-argument relations. Inspecting such corpora, we observe that there is ambiguity in the span of event triggers (e.g., "transcriptional activity" vs. 'transcriptional'), leading to inconsistencies across event trigger annotations. Such inconsistencies make it quite likely that similar phrases are annotated with different spans of event triggers, suggesting the possibility that a statistical learning algorithm misses an opportunity for generalizing from such event triggers. We anticipate that adjustments to the span of event triggers to reduce these inconsistencies would meaningfully improve the present performance of event extraction systems. In this study, we look into this possibility with the corpora provided by the 2009 BioNLP shared task as a proof of concept. We propose an Informed Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm, which trains models using the EM algorithm with a posterior regularization technique, which consults the gold-standard event trigger annotations in a form of constraints. We further propose four constraints on the possible event trigger annotations to be explored by the EM algorithm. The algorithm is shown to outperform the state-of-the-art algorithm on the development corpus in a statistically significant manner and on the test corpus by a narrow margin. The analysis of the annotations generated by the algorithm shows that there are various types of ambiguity in event annotations, even though they could be small in number.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 2 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#303
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,159
of 315,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,128 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.