New Resources and Perspectives for Biomedical Event Extraction

Event extraction is a major focus of recent work in biomedical information extraction. Despite substantial advances, many challenges still remain for reliable automatic extraction of events from text. We introduce a new biomedical event extraction resource consisting of analyses automatically created by systems participating in the recent BioNLP Shared Task (ST) 2011. In providing for the first time the outputs of a broad set of state-ofthe-art event extraction systems, this resource opens many new opportunities for studying aspects of event extraction, from the identification of common errors to the study of effective approaches to combining the strengths of systems. We demonstrate these opportunities through a multi-system analysis on three BioNLP ST 2011 main tasks, focusing on events that none of the systems can successfully extract. We further argue for new perspectives to the performance evaluation of domain event extraction systems, considering a document-level, “off-the-page ” representation and evaluation to complement the mentionlevel evaluations pursued in most recent work.

Coreference resolution in clinical discharge summaries, progress notes, surgical and pathology reports: a unified lexical approach

We developed a lexical rule-based system that uses a unified approach to resolving coreference across a wide variety of clinical records comprising discharge summaries, progress notes, pathology, radiology and surgical reports from two corpora (Ontology Development and Information Extraction (ODIE) and i2b2/VA) provided for the fifth i2b2/VA shared task. Taking the unweighted mean between 4 coreference metrics, validation of the system against the i2b2/VA corpus attained an overall F-score of 87.7% across all mention classes, with a maximum of 93.1% for coreference of persons, and a minimum of 77.2% for coreference of tests. For the ODIE corpus the overall F-score across all mention classes was 79.4%, with a maximum of 82.0% for coreference of persons and a minimum of 13.1% for coreference of diagnostic reagents. For the ODIE corpus our results are comparable to the mean reported inter-annotator agreement with the gold standard. We discuss the four categories of errors we identified, and how these might be addressed. The system uses a number of reusable modules and techniques that may be of benefit to the research community