BIOMEDICAL WORD SENSE DISAMBIGUATION WITH NEURAL WORD AND CONCEPT EMBEDDINGS

Addressing ambiguity issues is an important step in natural language processing (NLP) pipelines designed for information extraction and knowledge discovery. This problem is also common in biomedicine where NLP applications have become indispensable to exploit latent information from biomedical literature and clinical narratives from electronic medical records. In this thesis, we propose an ensemble model that employs recent advances in neural word embeddings along with knowledge based approaches to build a biomedical word sense disambiguation (WSD) system. Specifically, our system identities the correct sense from a given set of candidates for each ambiguous word when presented in its context (surrounding words). We use the MSH WSD dataset, a well known public dataset consisting of 203 ambiguous terms each with nearly 200 different instances and an average of two candidate senses represented by concepts in the unified medical language system (UMLS). We employ a popular biomedical concept, Our linear time (in terms of number of senses and context length) unsupervised and knowledge based approach improves over the state-of-the-art methods by over 3% in accuracy. A more expensive approach based on the k-nearest neighbor framework improves over prior best results by 5% in accuracy. Our results demonstrate that recent advances in neural dense word vector representations offer excellent potential for solving biomedical WSD

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