Detecting hedge cues and their scope in biomedical text with conditional random fields

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 953-961

  Agarwal, Shashank ^a   Yu, Hong ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b University of Wisconsin   (United States)

Author keywords

Hedge cue detection; Natural language processing; Text mining; Uncertainty detection

Indexed keywords

BASELINE SYSTEMS; BIOMEDICAL LITERATURE; BIOMEDICAL TEXT; BIOSCOPES; CONDITIONAL RANDOM FIELD; CUE PHRASE; HEDGE CUE DETECTION; MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; ON-LINE APPLICATIONS; TEXT MINING; TRAIN MODEL; UNCERTAINTY DETECTION;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; TEXT PROCESSING; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

FENCES;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICINE; EVALUATION; MACHINE LEARNING; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECALL; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNCERTAINTY;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DATA MINING; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; VOCABULARY, CONTROLLED;

EID: 78649330236     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2010.08.003     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Lakoff G. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. J Philos Logic 1973, 2:458-508.
2. Palmer F.R. Mood and modality 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
3. Chafe W. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology (advances in discourse processes) 1986, 261-272. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ. W. Chafe, J. Nichols (Eds.).
4. Hyland K. Hedging in scientific research articles 1998, John Benjamins Pub. Co., Amsterdam, Netherlands.
5. Szarvas G et al. The BioScope corpus: annotation for negation, uncertainty and their scope in biomedical texts. In: Proceedings of the workshop on current trends in biomedical natural language processing. Columbus, Ohio: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2008. p. 38-45.
6. Moisio M.A. A guide to health insurance billing 2006, Delmar Cengage Learning.
7. Bunescu R, Mooney R, Ramani A, Marcotte E. Integrating co-occurrence statistics with information extraction for robust retrieval of protein interactions from Medline. In: Proceedings of the workshop on linking natural language processing and biology: towards deeper biological literature analysis. New York City, New York: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2006. p. 49-56.
8. Matsuo Y., Ishizuka M. Keyword extraction from a single document using word co-occurrence statistical information. Int J Artif Intell Tools 2004, 13:157-169.
9. Fukuda K, Tamura A, Tsunoda T, Takagi T. Toward information extraction: identifying protein names from biological papers. In: Pacific symposium on biocomputing; 1998. p. 707-18.
10. Friedman C., Shagina L., Lussier Y., Hripcsak G. Automated encoding of clinical documents based on natural language processing. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004, 11:392-402.
11. Settles B. ABNER: an open source tool for automatically tagging genes, proteins and other entity names in text. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:3191-3192.
12. Agarwal S., Yu H. Automatically classifying sentences in full-text biomedical articles into introduction, methods, results and discussion. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:3174-3180.
13. Shatkay H., Pan F., Rzhetsky A., Wilbur W.J. Multi-dimensional classification of biomedical text: toward automated, practical provision of high-utility text to diverse users. Bioinformatics 2008, 24:2086-2093.
14. Rafkind B, Lee M, Chang S, Yu H. Exploring text and image features to classify images in bioscience literature. In: Proceedings of the workshop on linking natural language processing and biology: towards deeper biological literature analysis. New York City, New York: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2006. p. 73-80.
15. Müller H., Kenny E.E., Sternberg P.W. Textpresso: an ontology-based information retrieval and extraction system for biological literature. PLoS Biol 2004, 2:e309.
16. Donaldson I., et al. PreBIND and Textomy-mining the biomedical literature for protein-protein interactions using a support vector machine. BMC Bioinf 2003, 4:11.
17. Van Auken K., et al. Semi-automated curation of protein subcellular localization: a text mining-based approach to Gene Ontology (GO) Cellular Component curation. BMC Bioinf 2009, 10:228.
18. Friedman C., Alderson P.O., Austin J.H.M., Cimino J.J., Johnson S.B. A general natural-language text processor for clinical radiology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994, 1:161-174.
19. Light M, Qiu XY, Srinivasan P. The language of bioscience: facts, speculations, and statements in between. In: BioLINK 2004, linking biological literature, ontologies and databases. Boston, MA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2004. p. 17-24.
20. Medlock B, Briscoe T. Weakly supervised learning for hedge classification in scientific literature. In: Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics; 2007. p. 992-9.
21. Medlock B. Exploring hedge identification in biomedical literature. J Biomed Inform 2008, 41:636-654.
22. Szarvas G. Hedge classification in biomedical texts with a weakly supervised selection of keywords. In: Proceedings of the 46th meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2008. p. 281-9.
23. Kilicoglu H., Bergler S. Recognizing speculative language in biomedical research articles: a linguistically motivated perspective. BMC Bioinf 2008, 9(Suppl. 11):S10.
24. Thompson P, Venturi G, McNaught J, Montemagni S, Ananiadou S. Categorising modality in biomedical texts. In: LREC 2008 workshop on building and evaluating resources for biomedical text mining, Marrakech, Morocco; 2008. p. 27-34.
25. DiMarco C., Mercer R.E. Hedging in scientific articles as a means of classifying citations. Computing attitude and affect in text: theory and applications 2005, Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht.
26. Uzuner Ö., Zhang X., Sibanda T. Machine learning and rule-based approaches to assertion classification. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009, 16:109-115.
27. Chapman W.W., Bridewell W., Hanbury P., Cooper G.F., Buchanan B.G. A simple algorithm for identifying negated findings and diseases in discharge summaries. J Biomed Inform 2001, 34:301-310.
28. Chapman WW, Chu D, Dowling JN. ConText: an algorithm for identifying contextual features from clinical text. In: Proceedings of the workshop on BioNLP 2007: biological, translational, and clinical language processing. Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2007. p. 81-8.
29. Morante R, Daelemans W. Learning the scope of hedge cues in biomedical texts. In: Proceedings of the workshop on BioNLP. Boulder, Colorado: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2009. p. 28-36.
30. Yu H., Lee M., Kaufman D., Ely J., Osheroff J.A., Hripcsak G., et al. Development, implementation, and a cognitive evaluation of a definitional question answering system for physicians. J Biomed Inform 2007, 40:236-251.
31. Yu H, Cao Y. Automatically extracting information needs from Ad Hoc clinical questions. In: AMIA symposium annual proceedings; 2008. p. 96-100.
32. Lafferty J, McCallum A, Pereira F. Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on machine learning (ICML 2001), Williamstown, MA, USA; 2001. p. 282-9.
33. Pinto D, McCallum A, Wei X, Croft WB. Table extraction using conditional random fields. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. Toronto, Canada: ACM; 2003. p. 235-42.
34. Leaman R, Gonzalez G. BANNER: an executable survey of advances in biomedical named entity recognition. In: Pacific symposium on biocomputing; 2008. p. 652-63.
35. Dagan I, Marcus S, Markovitch S. Contextual word similarity and estimation from sparse data. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting on association for computational linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Association for Computational Linguistics; 1993. p. 164-71.
36. Yu H., Agichtein E. Extracting synonymous gene and protein terms from biological literature. Bioinformatics 2003, 19:340-349.
37. Weiss SM, Kapouleas I. An empirical comparison of pattern recognition, neural nets, and machine learning classification methods. In: Proceedings of the 11th international joint conference on artificial intelligence; 1989. p. 781-7.
38. Blum A, Mitchell T. Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on computational learning theory. Madison, Wisconsin, United States: ACM; 1998. p. 92-100.