MBA: a literature mining system for extracting biomedical abbreviations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The exploding growth of the biomedical literature presents many challenges for biological researchers. One such challenge is from the use of a great deal of abbreviations. Extracting abbreviations and their definitions accurately is very helpful to biologists and also facilitates biomedical text analysis. Existing approaches fall into four broad categories: rule based, machine learning based, text alignment based and statistically based. State of the art methods either focus exclusively on acronym-type abbreviations, or could not recognize rare abbreviations. We propose a systematic method to extract abbreviations effectively. At first a scoring method is used to classify the abbreviations into acronym-type and non-acronym-type abbreviations, and then their corresponding definitions are identified by two different methods: text alignment algorithm for the former, statistical method for the latter.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A literature mining system MBA was constructed to extract both acronym-type and non-acronym-type abbreviations. An abbreviation-tagged literature corpus, called Medstract gold standard corpus, was used to evaluate the system. MBA achieved a recall of 88% at the precision of 91% on the Medstract gold-standard EVALUATION Corpus.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We present a new literature mining system MBA for extracting biomedical abbreviations. Our evaluation demonstrates that the MBA system performs better than the others. It can identify the definition of not only acronym-type abbreviations including a little irregular acronym-type abbreviations (e.g., <CNS1, cyclophilin seven suppressor>), but also non-acronym-type abbreviations (e.g., <Fas, CD95>).</p

A comparison study on algorithms of detecting long forms for short forms in biomedical text

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Motivation</p> <p>With more and more research dedicated to literature mining in the biomedical domain, more and more systems are available for people to choose from when building literature mining applications. In this study, we focus on one specific kind of literature mining task, i.e., detecting definitions of acronyms, abbreviations, and symbols in biomedical text. We denote acronyms, abbreviations, and symbols as short forms (SFs) and their corresponding definitions as long forms (LFs). The study was designed to answer the following questions; i) how well a system performs in detecting LFs from novel text, ii) what the coverage is for various terminological knowledge bases in including SFs as synonyms of their LFs, and iii) how to combine results from various SF knowledge bases.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>We evaluated the following three publicly available detection systems in detecting LFs for SFs: i) a handcrafted pattern/rule based system by Ao and Takagi, ALICE, ii) a machine learning system by Chang et al., and iii) a simple alignment-based program by Schwartz and Hearst. In addition, we investigated the conceptual coverage of two terminological knowledge bases: i) the UMLS (the Unified Medical Language System), and ii) the BioThesaurus (a thesaurus of names for all UniProt protein records). We also implemented a web interface that provides a virtual integration of various SF knowledge bases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that detection systems agree with each other on most cases, and the existing terminological knowledge bases have a good coverage of synonymous relationship for frequently defined LFs. The web interface allows people to detect SF definitions from text and to search several SF knowledge bases.</p> <p>Availability</p> <p>The web site is <url>http://gauss.dbb.georgetown.edu/liblab/SFThesaurus</url>.</p

Acronyms as an integral part of multi–word term recognition - A token of appreciation

Term conflation is the process of linking together different variants of the same term. In automatic term recognition approaches, all term variants should be aggregated into a single normalized term representative, which is associated with a single domain–specific concept as a latent variable. In a previous study, we described FlexiTerm, an unsupervised method for recognition of multi–word terms from a domain–specific corpus. It uses a range of methods to normalize three types of term variation – orthographic, morphological and syntactic variation. Acronyms, which represent a highly productive type of term variation, were not supported. In this study, we describe how the functionality of FlexiTerm has been extended to recognize acronyms and incorporate them into the term conflation process. The main contribution of this study is not acronym recognition per se, but rather its integration with other types of term variation into the term conflation process. We evaluated the effects of term conflation in the context of information retrieval as one of its most prominent applications. On average, relative recall increased by 32 percent points, whereas index compression factor increased by 7 percent points. Therefore, evidence suggests that integration of acronyms provides non–trivial improvement of term conflation

Abbreviation definition identification based on automatic precision estimates

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The rapid growth of biomedical literature presents challenges for automatic text processing, and one of the challenges is abbreviation identification. The presence of unrecognized abbreviations in text hinders indexing algorithms and adversely affects information retrieval and extraction. Automatic abbreviation definition identification can help resolve these issues. However, abbreviations and their definitions identified by an automatic process are of uncertain validity. Due to the size of databases such as MEDLINE only a small fraction of abbreviation-definition pairs can be examined manually. An automatic way to estimate the accuracy of abbreviation-definition pairs extracted from text is needed. In this paper we propose an abbreviation definition identification algorithm that employs a variety of strategies to identify the most probable abbreviation definition. In addition our algorithm produces an accuracy estimate, pseudo-precision, for each strategy without using a human-judged gold standard. The pseudo-precisions determine the order in which the algorithm applies the strategies in seeking to identify the definition of an abbreviation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>On the Medstract corpus our algorithm produced 97% precision and 85% recall which is higher than previously reported results. We also annotated 1250 randomly selected MEDLINE records as a gold standard. On this set we achieved 96.5% precision and 83.2% recall. This compares favourably with the well known Schwartz and Hearst algorithm.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We developed an algorithm for abbreviation identification that uses a variety of strategies to identify the most probable definition for an abbreviation and also produces an estimated accuracy of the result. This process is purely automatic.</p

The biomedical abbreviation recognition and resolution (BARR) track: Benchmarking, evaluation and importance of abbreviation recognition systems applied to Spanish biomedical abstracts

Healthcare professionals are generating a substantial volume of clinical data in narrative form. As healthcare providers are confronted with serious time constraints, they frequently use telegraphic phrases, domain-specific abbreviations and shorthand notes. Efficient clinical text processing tools need to cope with the recognition and resolution of abbreviations, a task that has been extensively studied for English documents. Despite the outstanding number of clinical documents written worldwide in Spanish, only a marginal amount of studies has been published on this subject. In clinical texts, as opposed to the medical literature, abbreviations are generally used without their definitions or expanded forms. The aim of the first Biomedical Abbreviation Recognition and Resolution (BARR) track, posed at the IberEval 2017 evaluation campaign, was to assess and promote the development of systems for generating a sense inventory of medical abbreviations. The BARR track required the detection of mentions of abbreviations or short forms and their corresponding long forms or definitions from Spanish medical abstracts. For this track, the organizers provided the BARR medical document collection, the BARR corpus of manually annotated abstracts labelled by domain experts and the BARR-Markyt evaluation platform. A total of 7 teams submitted 25 runs for the two BARR subtasks: (a) the identification of mentions of abbreviations and their definitions and (b) the correct detection of short form-long form pairs. Here we describe the BARR track setting, the obtained results and the methodologies used by participating systems. The BARR task summary, corpus, resources and evaluation tool for testing systems beyond this campaign are available at: http://temu.inab.org .We acknowledge the Encomienda MINETAD-CNIO/OTG Sanidad Plan TL and Open-Minted (654021) H2020 project for funding.Postprint (published version

Biomedical term mapping databases

Longer words and phrases are frequently mapped onto a shorter form such as abbreviations or acronyms for efficiency of communication. These abbreviations are pervasive in all aspects of biology and medicine and as the amount of biomedical literature grows, so does the number of abbreviations and the average number of definitions per abbreviation. Even more confusing, different authors will often abbreviate the same word/phrase differently. This ambiguity impedes our ability to retrieve information, integrate databases and mine textual databases for content. Efforts to standardize nomenclature, especially those doing so retrospectively, need to be aware of different abbreviatory mappings and spelling variations. To address this problem, there have been several efforts to develop computer algorithms to identify the mapping of terms between short and long form within a large body of literature. To date, four such algorithms have been applied to create online databases that comprehensively map biomedical terms and abbreviations within MEDLINE: ARGH (http://lethargy.swmed.edu/ARGH/argh.asp), the Stanford Biomedical Abbreviation Server (http://bionlp.stanford.edu/abbreviation/), AcroMed (http://medstract.med.tufts.edu/acro1.1/index.htm) and SaRAD (http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/projects/abbrev.html). In addition to serving as useful computational tools, these databases serve as valuable references that help biologists keep up with an ever-expanding vocabulary of terms