For the average biologist, hands-on literature mining currently means a keyword search in PubMed. However, methods for extracting biomedical facts from the scientific literature have improved considerably, and the associated tools will probably soon be used in many laboratories to automatically annotate and analyse the growing number of system-wide experimental data sets. Owing to the increasing body of text and the open-access policies of many journals, literature mining is also becoming useful for both hypothesis generation and biological discovery. However, the latter will require the integration of literature and high-throughput data, which should encourage close collaborations between biologists and computational linguists.

/pdf/literature-mining-for-the-biologist-from-information-25hzxbc9uc.pdf

Literature mining for the biologist: from information retrieval to biological discovery.

The paper presents the design and implementation of the BioNLP'09 Shared Task, and reports the final results with analysis. The shared task consists of three sub-tasks, each of which addresses bio-molecular event extraction at a different level of specificity. The data was developed based on the GENIA event corpus. The shared task was run over 12 weeks, drawing initial interest from 42 teams. Of these teams, 24 submitted final results. The evaluation results are encouraging, indicating that state-of-the-art performance is approaching a practically applicable level and revealing some remaining challenges.

/pdf/overview-of-bionlp-09-shared-task-on-event-extraction-4a2xlih1g1.pdf

Overview of BioNLP'09 Shared Task on Event Extraction

The goal of the first BioCreAtIvE challenge (Critical Assessment of Information Extraction in Biology) was to provide a set of common evaluation tasks to assess the state of the art for text mining applied to biological problems. The results were presented in a workshop held in Granada, Spain March 28–31, 2004. The articles collected in this BMC Bioinformatics supplement entitled "A critical assessment of text mining methods in molecular biology" describe the BioCreAtIvE tasks, systems, results and their independent evaluation. BioCreAtIvE focused on two tasks. The first dealt with extraction of gene or protein names from text, and their mapping into standardized gene identifiers for three model organism databases (fly, mouse, yeast). The second task addressed issues of functional annotation, requiring systems to identify specific text passages that supported Gene Ontology annotations for specific proteins, given full text articles. The first BioCreAtIvE assessment achieved a high level of international participation (27 groups from 10 countries). The assessment provided state-of-the-art performance results for a basic task (gene name finding and normalization), where the best systems achieved a balanced 80% precision / recall or better, which potentially makes them suitable for real applications in biology. The results for the advanced task (functional annotation from free text) were significantly lower, demonstrating the current limitations of text-mining approaches where knowledge extrapolation and interpretation are required. In addition, an important contribution of BioCreAtIvE has been the creation and release of training and test data sets for both tasks. There are 22 articles in this special issue, including six that provide analyses of results or data quality for the data sets, including a novel inter-annotator consistency assessment for the test set used in task 2.

/pdf/overview-of-biocreative-critical-assessment-of-information-4d96ci8geb.pdf

Overview of BioCreAtIvE: critical assessment of information extraction for biology

Special Report: NCBI disease corpus: A resource for disease name recognition and concept normalization

Nineteen teams presented results for the Gene Mention Task at the BioCreative II Workshop. In this task participants designed systems to identify substrings in sentences corresponding to gene name mentions. A variety of different methods were used and the results varied with a highest achieved F1 score of 0.8721. Here we present brief descriptions of all the methods used and a statistical analysis of the results. We also demonstrate that, by combining the results from all submissions, an F score of 0.9066 is feasible, and furthermore that the best result makes use of the lowest scoring submissions.

/pdf/overview-of-biocreative-ii-gene-mention-recognition-30lskb0log.pdf

Overview of BioCreative II gene mention recognition

Named entity recognition (NER) is an important first step for text mining the biomedical literature. Evaluating the performance of biomedical NER systems is impossible without a standardized test corpus. The annotation of such a corpus for gene/protein name NER is a difficult process due to the complexity of gene/protein names. We describe the construction and annotation of GENETAG, a corpus of 20K MEDLINE® sentences for gene/protein NER. 15K GENETAG sentences were used for the BioCreAtIvE Task 1A Competition. To ensure heterogeneity of the corpus, MEDLINE sentences were first scored for term similarity to documents with known gene names, and 10K high- and 10K low-scoring sentences were chosen at random. The original 20K sentences were run through a gene/protein name tagger, and the results were modified manually to reflect a wide definition of gene/protein names subject to a specificity constraint, a rule that required the tagged entities to refer to specific entities. Each sentence in GENETAG was annotated with acceptable alternatives to the gene/protein names it contained, allowing for partial matching with semantic constraints. Semantic constraints are rules requiring the tagged entity to contain its true meaning in the sentence context. Application of these constraints results in a more meaningful measure of the performance of an NER system than unrestricted partial matching. The annotation of GENETAG required intricate manual judgments by annotators which hindered tagging consistency. The data were pre-segmented into words, to provide indices supporting comparison of system responses to the "gold standard". However, character-based indices would have been more robust than word-based indices. GENETAG Train, Test and Round1 data and ancillary programs are freely available at ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/tanabe/GENETAG.tar.gz
 . A newer version of GENETAG-05, will be released later this year.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2F1471-2105-6-S1-S3.pdf

GENETAG: a tagged corpus for gene/protein named entity recognition.

We describe the construction of a semantic database called SemCat consisting of a large number of semantically categorized names relevant to genomics. SemCat can be used to facilitate natural language processing in MEDLINE. We present suitable application areas including biomedical name classification and named entity recognition.

Wayne Matten

Papers

GENETAG: a tagged corpus for gene/protein named entity recognition.

SemCat: semantically categorized entities for genomics.