LIMSI@CLEF eHealth 2017 Task 2: Logistic Regression for Automatic Article Ranking

This paper describes the participation of the LIMSI-MIROR team at CLEF eHealth 2017, task 2. The task addresses the automatic ranking of articles in order to assist with the screening process of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Systematic Reviews. We used a logistic regression classifier and handled class imbalance using a combination of class reweighting and undersampling. We also experimented with two strategies for relevance feedback. Our best run obtained an overall Average Precision of 0.179 and Work Saved over Sampling @95% Recall of 0.650. This run uses stochastic gradient descent for training but no feature selection or relevance feedback. We observe high performance variation within the queries in the test set. Nonetheless, our results suggest that automatic assistance is promising for ranking the DTA literature as it could reduce the screening workload for review writer by 65% on average

Automatic inference of indexing rules for MEDLINE

This paper describes the use and customization of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) to infer indexing rules from MEDLINE citations. Preliminary results suggest this method may enhance the subheading attachment module of the Medical Text Indexer, a system for assisting MEDLINE indexers.

A distantly supervised dataset for automated data extraction from diagnostic studies

International audienceSystematic reviews are important in evidencebased medicine, but are expensive to produce.Automating or semi-automating the data extractionof index test, target condition, and referencestandard from articles has the potentialto decrease the cost of conducting systematicreviews of diagnostic test accuracy, but relevanttraining data is not available. We create adistantly supervised dataset of approximately90,000 sentences, and let two experts manuallyannotate a small subset of around 1,000sentences for evaluation. We evaluate the performanceof BioBERT and logistic regressionfor ranking the sentences, and compare theperformance for distant and direct supervision.Our results suggest that distant supervision canwork as well as, or better than direct supervisionon this problem, and that distantly trainedmodels can perform as well as, or better thanhuman annotators

NLP Community Perspectives on Replicability.

International audienceWith recent efforts in drawing attention to the task of replicating and/or reproducing1 results, for example in the context of COLING 2018 and various LREC workshops, the question arises how the NLP community views the topic of replicability in general. Using a survey, in which we involve members of the NLP community, we investigate how our community perceives this topic, its relevance and options for improvement. Based on over two hundred participants, the survey results confirm earlier observations, that successful reproducibility requires more than having access to code and data. Additionally, the results show that the topic has to be tackled from the authors, reviewers and community 's side

Improving links between literature and biological data with text mining: a case study with GEO, PDB and MEDLINE

High-throughput experiments and bioinformatics techniques are creating an exploding volume of data that are becoming overwhelming to keep track of for biologists and researchers who need to access, analyze and process existing data. Much of the available data are being deposited in specialized databases, such as the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) for microarrays or the Protein Data Bank (PDB) for protein structures and coordinates. Data sets are also being described by their authors in publications archived in literature databases such as MEDLINE and PubMed Central. Currently, the curation of links between biological databases and the literature mainly relies on manual labour, which makes it a time-consuming and daunting task. Herein, we analysed the current state of link curation between GEO, PDB and MEDLINE. We found that the link curation is heterogeneous depending on the sources and databases involved, and that overlap between sources is low, <50% for PDB and GEO. Furthermore, we showed that text-mining tools can automatically provide valuable evidence to help curators broaden the scope of articles and database entries that they review. As a result, we made recommendations to improve the coverage of curated links, as well as the consistency of information available from different databases while maintaining high-quality curation

Automatic classification of registered clinical trials towards the Global Burden of Diseases taxonomy of diseases and injuries

Includes details on the implementation of MetaMap and IntraMap, prioritization rules, the test set of clinical trials and the classification of the external test set according to the 171 GBD categories. Dataset S1: Expert-based enrichment database for the classification according to the 28 GBD categories. Manual classification of 503 UMLS concepts that could not be mapped to any of the 28 GBD categories. Dataset S2: Expert-based enrichment database for the classification according to the 171 GBD categories. Manual classification of 655 UMLS concepts that could not be mapped to any of the 171 GBD categories, among which 108 could be projected to candidate GBD categories. Table S1: Excluded residual GBD categories for the grouping of the GBD cause list in 171 GBD categories. A grouping of 193 GBD categories was defined during the GBD 2010 study to inform policy makers about the main health problems per country. From these 193 GBD categories, we excluded the 22 residual categories listed in the Table. We developed a classifier for the remaining 171 GBD categories. Among these residual categories, the unique excluded categories in the grouping of 28 GBD categories were “Other infectious diseases” and “Other endocrine, nutritional, blood, and immune disorders”. Table S2: Per-category evaluation of performance of the classifier for the 171 GBD categories plus the “No GBD” category. Number of trials per GBD category from the test set of 2,763 clinical trials. Sensitivities, specificities (in %) and likelihood ratios for each of the 171 GBD categories plus the “No GBD” category for the classifier using the Word Sense Disambiguation server, the expert-based enrichment database and the priority to the health condition field. Table S3: Performance of the 8 versions of the classifier for the 171 GBD categories. Exact-matching and weighted averaged sensitivities and specificities for 8 versions of the classifier for the 171 GBD categories. Exact-matching corresponds to the proportion (in %) of trials for which the automatic GBD classification is correct. Exact-matching was estimated over all trials (N = 2,763), trials concerning a unique GBD category (N = 2,092), trials concerning 2 or more GBD categories (N = 187), and trials not relevant for the GBD (N = 484). The weighted averaged sensitivity and specificity corresponds to the weighted average across GBD categories of the sensitivities and specificities for each GBD category plus the “No GBD” category (in %). The 8 versions correspond to the combinations of the use or not of the Word Sense Disambiguation server during the text annotation, the expert-based enrichment database, and the priority to the health condition field as a prioritization rule. Table S4: Per-category evaluation of the performance of the baseline for the 28 GBD categories plus the “No GBD” category. Number of trials per GBD category from the test set of 2,763 clinical trials. Sensitivities and specificities (in %) of the 28 GBD categories plus the “No GBD” category for the classification of clinical trial records towards GBD categories without using the UMLS knowledge source but based on the recognition in free text of the names of diseases defining in each GBD category only. For the baseline a clinical trial records was classified with a GBD category if at least one of the 291 disease names from the GBD cause list defining that GBD category appeared verbatim in the condition field, the public or scientific titles, separately, or in at least one of these three text fields. (DOCX 84 kb

The Elephant in the Room: Analyzing the Presence of Big Tech in Natural Language Processing Research

Recent advances in deep learning methods for natural language processing (NLP) have created new business opportunities and made NLP research critical for industry development. As one of the big players in the field of NLP, together with governments and universities, it is important to track the influence of industry on research. In this study, we seek to quantify and characterize industry presence in the NLP community over time. Using a corpus with comprehensive metadata of 78,187 NLP publications and 701 resumes of NLP publication authors, we explore the industry presence in the field since the early 90s. We find that industry presence among NLP authors has been steady before a steep increase over the past five years (180% growth from 2017 to 2022). A few companies account for most of the publications and provide funding to academic researchers through grants and internships. Our study shows that the presence and impact of the industry on natural language processing research are significant and fast-growing. This work calls for increased transparency of industry influence in the field