Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27747591›Full record

ArticleBrain informatics2016

An adaptive annotation approach for biomedical entity and relation recognition.

Seid Muhie Yimam, Chris Biemann, Ljiljana Majnaric, Šefket Šabanović, Andreas Holzinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Seid Muhie YimamTU Darmstadt CS Department, FG Language Technology, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany. seidymam@gmail.com.
Chris BiemannTU Darmstadt CS Department, FG Language Technology, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany.
Ljiljana MajnaricJosip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek Faculty of Medicine Osijek, Osijek, Croatia.
Šefket ŠabanovićJosip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek Faculty of Medicine Osijek, Osijek, Croatia.
Andreas HolzingerResearch Unit HCI-KDD Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2, 8036, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we demonstrate the impact of interactive machine learning: we develop biomedical entity recognition dataset using a human-into-the-loop approach. In contrary to classical machine learning, human-in-the-loop approaches do not operate on predefined training or test sets, but assume that human input regarding system improvement is supplied iteratively. Here, during annotation, a machine learning model is built on previous annotations and used to propose labels for subsequent annotation. To demonstrate that such interactive and iterative annotation speeds up the development of quality dataset annotation, we conduct three experiments. In the first experiment, we carry out an iterative annotation experimental simulation and show that only a handful of medical abstracts need to be annotated to produce suggestions that increase annotation speed. In the second experiment, clinical doctors have conducted a case study in annotating medical terms documents relevant for their research. The third experiment explores the annotation of semantic relations with relation instance learning across documents. The experiments validate our method qualitatively and quantitatively, and give rise to a more personalized, responsive information extraction technology.

Indexed as

Biomedical entity recognitionData miningHuman in the loopInteractive annotationKnowledge discoveryMachine learningRelation learning

Identifiers

PMID27747591
PMCPMC4999566

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.