↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating semantic relations in neural word embeddings with biomedical and general domain knowledge bases

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Evaluating semantic relations in neural word embeddings with biomedical and general domain knowledge bases
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12911-018-0630-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhiwei Chen, Zhe He, Xiuwen Liu, Jiang Bian

Abstract

In the past few years, neural word embeddings have been widely used in text mining. However, the vector representations of word embeddings mostly act as a black box in downstream applications using them, thereby limiting their interpretability. Even though word embeddings are able to capture semantic regularities in free text documents, it is not clear how different kinds of semantic relations are represented by word embeddings and how semantically-related terms can be retrieved from word embeddings. To improve the transparency of word embeddings and the interpretability of the applications using them, in this study, we propose a novel approach for evaluating the semantic relations in word embeddings using external knowledge bases: Wikipedia, WordNet and Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). We trained multiple word embeddings using health-related articles in Wikipedia and then evaluated their performance in the analogy and semantic relation term retrieval tasks. We also assessed if the evaluation results depend on the domain of the textual corpora by comparing the embeddings of health-related Wikipedia articles with those of general Wikipedia articles. Regarding the retrieval of semantic relations, we were able to retrieve semanti. Meanwhile, the two popular word embedding approaches, Word2vec and GloVe, obtained comparable results on both the analogy retrieval task and the semantic relation retrieval task, while dependency-based word embeddings had much worse performance in both tasks. We also found that the word embeddings trained with health-related Wikipedia articles obtained better performance in the health-related relation retrieval tasks than those trained with general Wikipedia articles. It is evident from this study that word embeddings can group terms with diverse semantic relations together. The domain of the training corpus does have impact on the semantic relations represented by word embeddings. We thus recommend using domain-specific corpus to train word embeddings for domain-specific text mining tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 23%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Lecturer 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 35 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Engineering 6 6%
Linguistics 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 30 June 2019.
All research outputs
#7,617,544
of 23,876,482 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#752
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,557
of 331,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#14
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,876,482 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,030 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 331,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.