Do peers see more in a paper than its authors?

Recent years have shown a gradual shift in the content of biomedical publications that is freely accessible, from titles and abstracts to full text. This has enabled new forms of automatic text analysis and has given rise to some interesting questions: How informative is the abstract compared to the full-text? What important information in the full-text is not present in the abstract? What should a good summary contain that is not already in the abstract? Do authors and peers see an article differently? We answer these questions by comparing the information content of the abstract to that in citances-sentences containing citations to that article. We contrast the important points of an article as judged by its authors versus as seen by peers. Focusing on the area of molecular interactions, we perform manual and automatic analysis, and we find that the set of all citances to a target article not only covers most information (entities, functions, experimental methods, and other biological concepts) found in its abstract, but also contains 20% more concepts. We further present a detailed summary of the differences across information types, and we examine the effects other citations and time have on the content of citances

The TREC 2004 genomics track categorization task: classifying full text biomedical documents

BACKGROUND: The TREC 2004 Genomics Track focused on applying information retrieval and text mining techniques to improve the use of genomic information in biomedicine. The Genomics Track consisted of two main tasks, ad hoc retrieval and document categorization. In this paper, we describe the categorization task, which focused on the classification of full-text documents, simulating the task of curators of the Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) system and consisting of three subtasks. One subtask of the categorization task required the triage of articles likely to have experimental evidence warranting the assignment of GO terms, while the other two subtasks were concerned with the assignment of the three top-level GO categories to each paper containing evidence for these categories. RESULTS: The track had 33 participating groups. The mean and maximum utility measure for the triage subtask was 0.3303, with a top score of 0.6512. No system was able to substantially improve results over simply using the MeSH term Mice. Analysis of significant feature overlap between the training and test sets was found to be less than expected. Sample coverage of GO terms assigned to papers in the collection was very sparse. Determining papers containing GO term evidence will likely need to be treated as separate tasks for each concept represented in GO, and therefore require much denser sampling than was available in the data sets. The annotation subtask had a mean F-measure of 0.3824, with a top score of 0.5611. The mean F-measure for the annotation plus evidence codes subtask was 0.3676, with a top score of 0.4224. Gene name recognition was found to be of benefit for this task. CONCLUSION: Automated classification of documents for GO annotation is a challenging task, as was the automated extraction of GO code hierarchies and evidence codes. However, automating these tasks would provide substantial benefit to biomedical curation, and therefore work in this area must continue. Additional experience will allow comparison and further analysis about which algorithmic features are most useful in biomedical document classification, and better understanding of the task characteristics that make automated classification feasible and useful for biomedical document curation. The TREC Genomics Track will be continuing in 2005 focusing on a wider range of triage tasks and improving results from 2004

Large-scale event extraction from literature with multi-level gene normalization

Text mining for the life sciences aims to aid database curation, knowledge summarization and information retrieval through the automated processing of biomedical texts. To provide comprehensive coverage and enable full integration with existing biomolecular database records, it is crucial that text mining tools scale up to millions of articles and that their analyses can be unambiguously linked to information recorded in resources such as UniProt, KEGG, BioGRID and NCBI databases. In this study, we investigate how fully automated text mining of complex biomolecular events can be augmented with a normalization strategy that identifies biological concepts in text, mapping them to identifiers at varying levels of granularity, ranging from canonicalized symbols to unique gene and proteins and broad gene families. To this end, we have combined two state-of-the-art text mining components, previously evaluated on two community-wide challenges, and have extended and improved upon these methods by exploiting their complementary nature. Using these systems, we perform normalization and event extraction to create a large-scale resource that is publicly available, unique in semantic scope, and covers all 21.9 million PubMed abstracts and 460 thousand PubMed Central open access full-text articles. This dataset contains 40 million biomolecular events involving 76 million gene/protein mentions, linked to 122 thousand distinct genes from 5032 species across the full taxonomic tree. Detailed evaluations and analyses reveal promising results for application of this data in database and pathway curation efforts. The main software components used in this study are released under an open-source license. Further, the resulting dataset is freely accessible through a novel API, providing programmatic and customized access (http://www.evexdb.org/api/v001/). Finally, to allow for large-scale bioinformatic analyses, the entire resource is available for bulk download from http://evexdb.org/download/, under the Creative Commons -Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA) license

Using Neural Networks for Relation Extraction from Biomedical Literature

Using different sources of information to support automated extracting of relations between biomedical concepts contributes to the development of our understanding of biological systems. The primary comprehensive source of these relations is biomedical literature. Several relation extraction approaches have been proposed to identify relations between concepts in biomedical literature, namely, using neural networks algorithms. The use of multichannel architectures composed of multiple data representations, as in deep neural networks, is leading to state-of-the-art results. The right combination of data representations can eventually lead us to even higher evaluation scores in relation extraction tasks. Thus, biomedical ontologies play a fundamental role by providing semantic and ancestry information about an entity. The incorporation of biomedical ontologies has already been proved to enhance previous state-of-the-art results.Comment: Artificial Neural Networks book (Springer) - Chapter 1