↓ Skip to main content

A method for named entity normalization in biomedical articles: application to diseases and plants

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
A method for named entity normalization in biomedical articles: application to diseases and plants
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1857-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hyejin Cho, Wonjun Choi, Hyunju Lee

Abstract

In biomedical articles, a named entity recognition (NER) technique that identifies entity names from texts is an important element for extracting biological knowledge from articles. After NER is applied to articles, the next step is to normalize the identified names into standard concepts (i.e., disease names are mapped to the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings disease terms). In biomedical articles, many entity normalization methods rely on domain-specific dictionaries for resolving synonyms and abbreviations. However, the dictionaries are not comprehensive except for some entities such as genes. In recent years, biomedical articles have accumulated rapidly, and neural network-based algorithms that incorporate a large amount of unlabeled data have shown considerable success in several natural language processing problems. In this study, we propose an approach for normalizing biological entities, such as disease names and plant names, by using word embeddings to represent semantic spaces. For diseases, training data from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) disease corpus and unlabeled data from PubMed abstracts were used to construct word representations. For plants, a training corpus that we manually constructed and unlabeled PubMed abstracts were used to represent word vectors. We showed that the proposed approach performed better than the use of only the training corpus or only the unlabeled data and showed that the normalization accuracy was improved by using our model even when the dictionaries were not comprehensive. We obtained F-scores of 0.808 and 0.690 for normalizing the NCBI disease corpus and manually constructed plant corpus, respectively. We further evaluated our approach using a data set in the disease normalization task of the BioCreative V challenge. When only the disease corpus was used as a dictionary, our approach significantly outperformed the best system of the task. The proposed approach shows robust performance for normalizing biological entities. The manually constructed plant corpus and the proposed model are available at http://gcancer.org/plant and http://gcancer.org/normalization , respectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 20%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 38 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Engineering 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 31 30%
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 14 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,917,778
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,965
of 7,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,266
of 325,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#82
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 325,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.