WP4 ‐ Modernization of teaching contents 4.1. Need analysis for knowledge refreshment

This brochure is a result of the TEMPUS project “Building Capacity of Serbian Agricultural Education to Link with Society” (CaSA) 544072-TEMPUS-1-2013-1-RS-TEMPUS-SMHES (2013-4604/001-001). Daniela Šćepanović and Steve Quarrie were responsible for questionnaire construction, assisted by Slavica Čolić. Analysis of questionnaires was coordinated by Daniela Šćepanović, as well as final preparation and presentation of the results. For final document preparation, all CaSA Steering Committee members gave valuable contribution. For brochure final preparation Daniela Šćepanović, Vesna Poleksić and Goran Topisirović were in charge.TEMPUS Project: Building Capacity of Serbian Agricultural Education to Link with Society (CaSA) 544072-TEMPUS-1-2013-1-RS-TEMPUS-SMHES (2013 – 4604 / 001 - 001) Coordinator: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agricultur

OGER++: hybrid multi-type entity recognition

Background: We present a text-mining tool for recognizing biomedical entities in scientific literature. OGER++ is a hybrid system for named entity recognition and concept recognition (linking), which combines a dictionary-based annotator with a corpus-based disambiguation component. The annotator uses an efficient look-up strategy combined with a normalization method for matching spelling variants. The disambiguation classifier is implemented as a feed-forward neural network which acts as a postfilter to the previous step. Results: We evaluated the system in terms of processing speed and annotation quality. In the speed benchmarks, the OGER++ web service processes 9.7 abstracts or 0.9 full-text documents per second. On the CRAFT corpus, we achieved 71.4% and 56.7% F1 for named entity recognition and concept recognition, respectively. Conclusions: Combining knowledge-based and data-driven components allows creating a system with competitive performance in biomedical text mining

UZH@SMM4H: System Descriptions

Our team at the University of Zurich participated in the first 3 of the 4 sub-tasks at the Social Media Mining for Health Applications (SMM4H) shared task. We experimented with different approaches for text classification, namely traditional feature-based classifiers (Logistic Regression and Support Vector Machines), shallow neural networks, RCNNs, and CNNs. This system description paper provides details regarding the different system architectures and the achieved results

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable