The textual characteristics of traditional and Open Access scientific journals are similar

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent years have seen an increased amount of natural language processing (NLP) work on full text biomedical journal publications. Much of this work is done with Open Access journal articles. Such work assumes that Open Access articles are representative of biomedical publications in general and that methods developed for analysis of Open Access full text publications will generalize to the biomedical literature as a whole. If this assumption is wrong, the cost to the community will be large, including not just wasted resources, but also flawed science. This paper examines that assumption.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We collected two sets of documents, one consisting only of Open Access publications and the other consisting only of traditional journal publications. We examined them for differences in surface linguistic structures that have obvious consequences for the ease or difficulty of natural language processing and for differences in semantic content as reflected in lexical items. Regarding surface linguistic structures, we examined the incidence of conjunctions, negation, passives, and pronominal anaphora, and found that the two collections did not differ. We also examined the distribution of sentence lengths and found that both collections were characterized by the same mode. Regarding lexical items, we found that the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the two collections was low, and was lower than the divergence between either collection and a reference corpus. Where small differences did exist, log likelihood analysis showed that they were primarily in the area of formatting and in specific named entities.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We did not find structural or semantic differences between the Open Access and traditional journal collections.</p

Text Mining Improves Prediction of Protein Functional Sites

We present an approach that integrates protein structure analysis and text mining for protein functional site prediction, called LEAP-FS (Literature Enhanced Automated Prediction of Functional Sites). The structure analysis was carried out using Dynamics Perturbation Analysis (DPA), which predicts functional sites at control points where interactions greatly perturb protein vibrations. The text mining extracts mentions of residues in the literature, and predicts that residues mentioned are functionally important. We assessed the significance of each of these methods by analyzing their performance in finding known functional sites (specifically, small-molecule binding sites and catalytic sites) in about 100,000 publicly available protein structures. The DPA predictions recapitulated many of the functional site annotations and preferentially recovered binding sites annotated as biologically relevant vs. those annotated as potentially spurious. The text-based predictions were also substantially supported by the functional site annotations: compared to other residues, residues mentioned in text were roughly six times more likely to be found in a functional site. The overlap of predictions with annotations improved when the text-based and structure-based methods agreed. Our analysis also yielded new high-quality predictions of many functional site residues that were not catalogued in the curated data sources we inspected. We conclude that both DPA and text mining independently provide valuable high-throughput protein functional site predictions, and that integrating the two methods using LEAP-FS further improves the quality of these predictions

The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An increase in work on the full text of journal articles and the growth of PubMedCentral have the opportunity to create a major paradigm shift in how biomedical text mining is done. However, until now there has been no comprehensive characterization of how the bodies of full text journal articles differ from the abstracts that until now have been the subject of most biomedical text mining research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We examined the structural and linguistic aspects of abstracts and bodies of full text articles, the performance of text mining tools on both, and the distribution of a variety of semantic classes of named entities between them. We found marked structural differences, with longer sentences in the article bodies and much heavier use of parenthesized material in the bodies than in the abstracts. We found content differences with respect to linguistic features. Three out of four of the linguistic features that we examined were statistically significantly differently distributed between the two genres. We also found content differences with respect to the distribution of semantic features. There were significantly different densities per thousand words for three out of four semantic classes, and clear differences in the extent to which they appeared in the two genres. With respect to the performance of text mining tools, we found that a mutation finder performed equally well in both genres, but that a wide variety of gene mention systems performed much worse on article bodies than they did on abstracts. POS tagging was also more accurate in abstracts than in article bodies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Aspects of structure and content differ markedly between article abstracts and article bodies. A number of these differences may pose problems as the text mining field moves more into the area of processing full-text articles. However, these differences also present a number of opportunities for the extraction of data types, particularly that found in parenthesized text, that is present in article bodies but not in article abstracts.</p

U-Compare bio-event meta-service: compatible BioNLP event extraction services

AbstractBackgroundBio-molecular event extraction from literature is recognized as an important task of bio text mining and, as such, many relevant systems have been developed and made available during the last decade. While such systems provide useful services individually, there is a need for a meta-service to enable comparison and ensemble of such services, offering optimal solutions for various purposes.ResultsWe have integrated nine event extraction systems in the U-Compare framework, making them inter-compatible and interoperable with other U-Compare components. The U-Compare event meta-service provides various meta-level features for comparison and ensemble of multiple event extraction systems. Experimental results show that the performance improvements achieved by the ensemble are significant. ConclusionsWhile individual event extraction systems themselves provide useful features for bio text mining, the U-Compare meta-service is expected to improve the accessibility to the individual systems, and to enable meta-level uses over multiple event extraction systems such as comparison and ensemble.This research was partially supported by KAKENHI 18002007 [YK, MM, JDK, SP, TO, JT]; JST PRESTO and KAKENHI 21500130 [YK]; the Academy of Finland and computational resources were provided by CSC -- IT Center for Science Ltd [JB, FG]; the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) [SVL]; UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences, Research Council (BBSRC project BB/G013160/1 Automated Biological Event Extraction from the Literature for Drug Discovery) and JISC, National Centre for Text Mining [SA]; the Spanish grant BIO2010-17527 [MN, APM]; NIH Grant U54 DA021519 [AO, DRR]Peer Reviewe

Nominalization and Alternations in Biomedical Language

Background: This paper presents data on alternations in the argument structure of common domain-specific verbs and their associated verbal nominalizations in the PennBioIE corpus. Alternation is the term in theoretical linguistics for variations in the surface syntactic form of verbs, e.g. the different forms of stimulate in FSH stimulates follicular development and follicular development is stimulated by FSH. The data is used to assess the implications of alternations for biomedical text mining systems and to test the fit of the sublanguage model to biomedical texts. Methodology/Principal Findings: We examined 1,872 tokens of the ten most common domain-specific verbs or their zerorelated nouns in the PennBioIE corpus and labelled them for the presence or absence of three alternations. We then annotated the arguments of 746 tokens of the nominalizations related to these verbs and counted alternations related to the presence or absence of arguments and to the syntactic position of non-absent arguments. We found that alternations are quite common both for verbs and for nominalizations. We also found a previously undescribed alternation involving an adjectival present participle. Conclusions/Significance: We found that even in this semantically restricted domain, alternations are quite common, and alternations involving nominalizations are exceptionally diverse. Nonetheless, the sublanguage model applies to biomedica

An expanded evaluation of protein function prediction methods shows an improvement in accuracy

Background: A major bottleneck in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of life is the assignment of function to proteins. While molecular experiments provide the most reliable annotation of proteins, their relatively low throughput and restricted purview have led to an increasing role for computational function prediction. However, assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging. Results: We conducted the second critical assessment of functional annotation (CAFA), a timed challenge to assess computational methods that automatically assign protein function. We evaluated 126 methods from 56 research groups for their ability to predict biological functions using Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology on a set of 3681 proteins from 18 species. CAFA2 featured expanded analysis compared with CAFA1, with regards to data set size, variety, and assessment metrics. To review progress in the field, the analysis compared the best methods from CAFA1 to those of CAFA2. Conclusions: The top-performing methods in CAFA2 outperformed those from CAFA1. This increased accuracy can be attributed to a combination of the growing number of experimental annotations and improved methods for function prediction. The assessment also revealed that the definition of top-performing algorithms is ontology specific, that different performance metrics can be used to probe the nature of accurate predictions, and the relative diversity of predictions in the biological process and human phenotype ontologies. While there was methodological improvement between CAFA1 and CAFA2, the interpretation of results and usefulness of individual methods remain context-dependent. Keywords: Protein function prediction, Disease gene prioritizationpublishedVersio

An Expanded Evaluation of Protein Function Prediction Methods Shows an Improvement In Accuracy

Background: A major bottleneck in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of life is the assignment of function to proteins. While molecular experiments provide the most reliable annotation of proteins, their relatively low throughput and restricted purview have led to an increasing role for computational function prediction. However, assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging. Results: We conducted the second critical assessment of functional annotation (CAFA), a timed challenge to assess computational methods that automatically assign protein function. We evaluated 126 methods from 56 research groups for their ability to predict biological functions using Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology on a set of 3681 proteins from 18 species. CAFA2 featured expanded analysis compared with CAFA1, with regards to data set size, variety, and assessment metrics. To review progress in the field, the analysis compared the best methods from CAFA1 to those of CAFA2. Conclusions: The top-performing methods in CAFA2 outperformed those from CAFA1. This increased accuracy can be attributed to a combination of the growing number of experimental annotations and improved methods for function prediction. The assessment also revealed that the definition of top-performing algorithms is ontology specific, that different performance metrics can be used to probe the nature of accurate predictions, and the relative diversity of predictions in the biological process and human phenotype ontologies. While there was methodological improvement between CAFA1 and CAFA2, the interpretation of results and usefulness of individual methods remain context-dependent