Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30666476›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2019

OGER++: hybrid multi-type entity recognition.

Lenz Furrer, Anna Jancso, Nicola Colic, Fabio Rinaldi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Automated annotation of scientific texts for ML-based keyphrase extraction and validation.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. OnTheFlyNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Lenz FurrerInstitute of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich, Andreasstr. 15, 8050, Zürich, Switzerland.
Anna JancsoInstitute of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich, Andreasstr. 15, 8050, Zürich, Switzerland.
Nicola ColicInstitute of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich, Andreasstr. 15, 8050, Zürich, Switzerland.
Fabio RinaldiInstitute of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich, Andreasstr. 15, 8050, Zürich, Switzerland. fabio.rinaldi@uzh.ch.

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung CR30I1 162758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsCombining knowledge-based and data-driven components allows creating a system with competitive performance in biomedical text mining.

Indexed as

Concept recognitionMachine learningNamed entity recognitionNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID30666476
PMCPMC6689863

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.