Comparing and combining chunkers of biomedical text

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 354-360

  Kang, Ning ^a   van Mulligen, Erik M ^a   Kors, Jan A ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chunking systems; Evaluation; GENIA corpus; Natural language processing; Shallow parsing; Simple voting scheme

Indexed keywords

CHUNKING SYSTEMS; EVALUATION; GENIA CORPUS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; SHALLOW PARSING; SIMPLE VOTING SCHEME;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BIOINFORMATICS; COMMUNICATION SOFTWARE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DATA EXTRACTION; MACHINE LEARNING; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECALL; SEMANTICS; TEXT CHUNKING;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; ALGORITHMS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; VOCABULARY, CONTROLLED;

EID: 79952756879     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2010.10.005     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Abney S.P. Parsing by chunks. Principle-based parsing: computation and psycholinguistics 1991, 257-278. Kluwer Academic Publ, Dordrecht. R.C. Berwick, S.P. Abney, C. Tenny (Eds.).
2. Ramshaw LA, Marcus MP. Text chunking using transformation-based learning. In: Proceedings of the third ACL workshop on very large corpora. Cambridge, USA; 1995. p. 82-94.
3. Pratt W, Yetisgen-Yildiz M. A study of biomedical concept identification: MetaMap vs. people. In: Proceedings of the AMIA annual symposium. Washington; 2003. p. 529-33.
4. I2b2. 2010 i2b2/VA Challenge Evaluation. Concept annotation guidelines. [cited 10.06.10]. https://www.i2b2.org/NLP/Relations/assets/Concept%20Annotation%20Guideline.pdf.
5. Zhou GD, Su J. Named entity recognition using an HMM-based chunk tagger. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics. Morristown, USA; 2001. p. 473-80.
6. Aronson AR. Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the MetaMap program. In: Proceedings of the AMIA symposium. Washington; 2001. p. 17-21.
7. Rinaldi F., Schneider G., Kaljurand K., Hess M., Andronis C., Konstandi O., et al. Mining of relations between proteins over biomedical scientific literature using a deep-linguistic approach. Artif Intell Med 2007, 39:127-136.
8. Sang EF, Buchholz S. Introduction to the CoNLL-2000 shared task: chunking. In: Proceedings of CoNLL-2000and LLL-2000. Lisbon, Portugal; 2000. p. 127-32.
9. Kudoh T, Matsumoto Y. Use of support vector learning for chunk identification. In: Proceedings of CoNLL-2000 and LLL-2000. Lisbon, Portugal; 2000. p. 142-4.
10. Sang EF. Text chunking by system combination. In: Proceedings of CoNLL-2000 and LLL-2000. Lisbon, Portugal; 2000. p. 151-3.
11. Van Halteren H. Chunking with WPDV models. In: Proceedings of CoNLL-2000 and LLL-2000. Lisbon, Portugal; 2000. p. 154-6.
12. Wermter J, Fluck J, Stroetgen J, Geißler S, Hahn U. Recognizing noun phrases in biomedical text: an evaluation of lab prototypes and commercial chunkers. In: SMBM 2005 - proceedings of the 1st international symposium on semantic mining in biomedicine. Hinxton, England; 2005. p. 25-33.
13. Tateisi Y, Yakushiji A, Ohta T, Tsujii J. Syntax annotation for the GENIA corpus. In: Proceedings of the IJCNLP. Jeju Island, Korea; 2005. p. 222-7.
14. Cunningham H. GATE, a general architecture for text engineering. Comput Hum 2002, 36:223-254.
15. Cunningham H, Maynard D, Bontcheva K, Tablan V, Ursu C, Dimitrov M et al. Developing language processing components with GATE version 5 (a user guide). University of Sheffield; 2009.
16. Tsuruoka Y. Bidirectional inference with the easiest-first strategy for tagging sequence data. In: Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing. Vancouver, Canada; 2005. p. 467-74.
17. Tersmette KWF, Scott AF, Moore GW, Matheson NW, Miller RE. Barrier word method for detecting molecular biology multiple word terms. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. Washington, USA; 1988. p. 207-21.
18. Buyko E, Wermter J, Poprat M, Hahn U. Automatically adapting an NLP core engine to the biology domain. In: Proceedings of the joint BioLINKBio-ontologies meeting. Fortaleza, Brasil; 2006. p. 65-8.
19. Ferrucci D., Lally A. UIMA: an architectural approach to unstructured information processing in the corporate research environment. Nat Lang Eng 2004, 10:327-348.
20. Kudo T, Matsumoto Y. Chunking with support vector machines. In: the North American chapter ofthe association for computational linguistics. Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 2001. p. 1-8.
21. Sang E.F. Memory-based shallow parsing. J Mach Learn Res 2002, 2:559-594.
22. Campbell DA, Johnson SB. Comparing syntactic complexity in medical and non-medical corpora. In: Proceedings of the AMIA symposium. Washington, USA; 2001. p. 90-2.
23. Wermter J, Hahn U. Really, is medical sublanguage that different? Experimental counter-evidence from tagging medical and newspaper corpora. In: Medinfo 2004 - proceedings of the 11th world congress on medical informatics. San Francisco, USA; 2004. p. 560-4.
24. Pakhomov S.V., Coden A., Chute C.G. Developing a corpus of clinical notes manually annotated for part-of-speech. Int J Med Inform 2006, 75:418-429.
25. Liu K., Chapman W., Hwa R., Crowley R.S. Heuristic sample selection to minimize reference standard training set for a part-of-speech tagger. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007, 14:641-650.