MultiGBS: A multi-layer graph approach to biomedical summarization

Automatic text summarization methods generate a shorter version of the input text to assist the reader in gaining a quick yet informative gist. Existing text summarization methods generally focus on a single aspect of text when selecting sentences, causing the potential loss of essential information. In this study, we propose a domain-specific method that models a document as a multi-layer graph to enable multiple features of the text to be processed at the same time. The features we used in this paper are word similarity, semantic similarity, and co-reference similarity, which are modelled as three different layers. The unsupervised method selects sentences from the multi-layer graph based on the MultiRank algorithm and the number of concepts. The proposed MultiGBS algorithm employs UMLS and extracts the concepts and relationships using different tools such as SemRep, MetaMap, and OGER. Extensive evaluation by ROUGE and BERTScore shows increased F-measure values

Clustering cliques for graph-based summarization of the biomedical research literature

BACKGROUND: Graph-based notions are increasingly used in biomedical data mining and knowledge discovery tasks. In this paper, we present a clique-clustering method to automatically summarize graphs of semantic predications produced from PubMed citations (titles and abstracts). RESULTS: SemRep is used to extract semantic predications from the citations returned by a PubMed search. Cliques were identified from frequently occurring predications with highly connected arguments filtered by degree centrality. Themes contained in the summary were identified with a hierarchical clustering algorithm based on common arguments shared among cliques. The validity of the clusters in the summaries produced was compared to the Silhouette-generated baseline for cohesion, separation and overall validity. The theme labels were also compared to a reference standard produced with major MeSH headings. CONCLUSIONS: For 11 topics in the testing data set, the overall validity of clusters from the system summary was 10% better than the baseline (43% versus 33%). While compared to the reference standard from MeSH headings, the results for recall, precision and F-score were 0.64, 0.65, and 0.65 respectively