Evaluating automatically annotated treebanks for linguistic research

This study discusses evaluation methods for linguists to use when employing an automatically annotated treebank as a source of linguistic evidence. While treebanks are usually evaluated with a general measure over all the data, linguistic studies often focus on a particular construction or a group of structures. To judge the quality of linguistic evidence in this case, it would be beneficial to estimate annotation quality over all instances of a particular construction. I discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of four approaches to this type of evaluation: manual evaluation of the results, manual evaluation of the text, falling back to simpler annotation and searching for particular instances of the construction. Furthermore, I illustrate the approaches using an example from Dutch linguistics, two-verb cluster constructions, and estimate precision and recall for this construction on a large automatically annotated treebank of Dutch. From this, I conclude that a combination of approaches on samples from the treebank can be used to estimate the accuracy of the annotation for the construction of interest. This allows researchers to make more definite linguistic claims on the basis of data from automatically annotated treebanks

Nonsurgical Periodontal Treatment Options and Their Impact on Subgingival Microbiota

Background: Different periodontal treatment methods (quadrant-wise debridement, scaling and root planing (Q-SRP), full-mouth scaling (FMS), full-mouth disinfection (FMD), and FMD with adjuvant erythritol air-polishing (FMDAP)) were applied in periodontitis patients (stage III/IV). The study objective (substudy of ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03509233) was to compare the impact of treatments on subgingival colonization. Methods: Forty patients were randomized to the treatment groups. Periodontal parameters and subgingival colonization were evaluated at baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. Results: Positive changes in clinical parameters were recorded in every treatment group during the 3-month follow-up period, but did not always continue. In three groups, specific bacteria decreased after 3 months; however, this was associated with a renewed increase after 6 months (FMS: Porphyromonas gingivalis; FMD: Eubacterium nodatum, Prevotella dentalis; and FMDAP: uncultured Prevotella sp.). Conclusions: The benefit of all clinical treatments measured after 3 months was associated with a decrease in pathogenic bacteria in the FMS, FMD, and FMDAP groups. However, after 6 months, we observed further improvement or some stagnation in clinical outcomes accompanied by deterioration of the microbiological profile. Investigating the subgingival microbiota might help appraise successful periodontal treatment and implement individualized therapy