↓ Skip to main content

Entity recognition in the biomedical domain using a hybrid approach

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Entity recognition in the biomedical domain using a hybrid approach
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13326-017-0157-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Basaldella, Lenz Furrer, Carlo Tasso, Fabio Rinaldi

Abstract

This article describes a high-recall, high-precision approach for the extraction of biomedical entities from scientific articles. The approach uses a two-stage pipeline, combining a dictionary-based entity recognizer with a machine-learning classifier. First, the OGER entity recognizer, which has a bias towards high recall, annotates the terms that appear in selected domain ontologies. Subsequently, the Distiller framework uses this information as a feature for a machine learning algorithm to select the relevant entities only. For this step, we compare two different supervised machine-learning algorithms: Conditional Random Fields and Neural Networks. In an in-domain evaluation using the CRAFT corpus, we test the performance of the combined systems when recognizing chemicals, cell types, cellular components, biological processes, molecular functions, organisms, proteins, and biological sequences. Our best system combines dictionary-based candidate generation with Neural-Network-based filtering. It achieves an overall precision of 86% at a recall of 60% on the named entity recognition task, and a precision of 51% at a recall of 49% on the concept recognition task. These results are to our knowledge the best reported so far in this particular task.

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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 22 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Linguistics 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 15 27%
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 15 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,483,026
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#238
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,465
of 331,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 331,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.