Automatic Extraction of Medication Mentions from Tweets-Overview of the BioCreative VII Shared Task 3 Competition

This study presents the outcomes of the shared task competition BioCreative VII (Task 3) focusing on the extraction of medication names from a Twitter user's publicly available tweets (the user's 'timeline'). In general, detecting health-related tweets is notoriously challenging for natural language processing tools. The main challenge, aside from the informality of the language used, is that people tweet about any and all topics, and most of their tweets are not related to health. Thus, finding those tweets in a user's timeline that mention specific health-related concepts such as medications requires addressing extreme imbalance. Task 3 called for detecting tweets in a user's timeline that mentions a medication name and, for each detected mention, extracting its span. The organizers made available a corpus consisting of 182 049 tweets publicly posted by 212 Twitter users with all medication mentions manually annotated. The corpus exhibits the natural distribution of positive tweets, with only 442 tweets (0.2%) mentioning a medication. This task was an opportunity for participants to evaluate methods that are robust to class imbalance beyond the simple lexical match. A total of 65 teams registered, and 16 teams submitted a system run. This study summarizes the corpus created by the organizers and the approaches taken by the participating teams for this challenge. The corpus is freely available at https://biocreative.bioinformatics.udel.edu/tasks/biocreative-vii/track-3/. The methods and the results of the competing systems are analyzed with a focus on the approaches taken for learning from class-imbalanced data.

Multi-label classification for biomedical literature: an overview of the BioCreative VII LitCovid Track for COVID-19 literature topic annotations

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been severely impacting global society since December 2019. The related findings such as vaccine and drug development have been reported in biomedical literature-at a rate of about 10 000 articles on COVID-19 per month. Such rapid growth significantly challenges manual curation and interpretation. For instance, LitCovid is a literature database of COVID-19-related articles in PubMed, which has accumulated more than 200 000 articles with millions of accesses each month by users worldwide. One primary curation task is to assign up to eight topics (e.g. Diagnosis and Treatment) to the articles in LitCovid. The annotated topics have been widely used for navigating the COVID literature, rapidly locating articles of interest and other downstream studies. However, annotating the topics has been the bottleneck of manual curation. Despite the continuing advances in biomedical text-mining methods, few have been dedicated to topic annotations in COVID-19 literature. To close the gap, we organized the BioCreative LitCovid track to call for a community effort to tackle automated topic annotation for COVID-19 literature. The BioCreative LitCovid dataset-consisting of over 30 000 articles with manually reviewed topics-was created for training and testing. It is one of the largest multi-label classification datasets in biomedical scientific literature. Nineteen teams worldwide participated and made 80 submissions in total. Most teams used hybrid systems based on transformers. The highest performing submissions achieved 0.8875, 0.9181 and 0.9394 for macro-F1-score, micro-F1-score and instance-based F1-score, respectively. Notably, these scores are substantially higher (e.g. 12%, higher for macro F1-score) than the corresponding scores of the state-of-art multi-label classification method. The level of participation and results demonstrate a successful track and help close the gap between dataset curation and method development. The dataset is publicly available via https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/lu/LitCovid/biocreative/ for benchmarking and further development. Database URL https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/lu/LitCovid/biocreative/.

Biological event composition

BACKGROUND

In recent years, biological event extraction has emerged as a key natural language processing task, aiming to address the information overload problem in accessing the molecular biology literature. The BioNLP shared task competitions have contributed to this recent interest considerably. The first competition (BioNLP'09) focused on extracting biological events from Medline abstracts from a narrow domain, while the theme of the latest competition (BioNLP-ST'11) was generalization and a wider range of text types, event types, and subject domains were considered. We view event extraction as a building block in larger discourse interpretation and propose a two-phase, linguistically-grounded, rule-based methodology. In the first phase, a general, underspecified semantic interpretation is composed from syntactic dependency relations in a bottom-up manner. The notion of embedding underpins this phase and it is informed by a trigger dictionary and argument identification rules. Coreference resolution is also performed at this step, allowing extraction of inter-sentential relations. The second phase is concerned with constraining the resulting semantic interpretation by shared task specifications. We evaluated our general methodology on core biological event extraction and speculation/negation tasks in three main tracks of BioNLP-ST'11 (GENIA, EPI, and ID).

RESULTS

We achieved competitive results in GENIA and ID tracks, while our results in the EPI track leave room for improvement. One notable feature of our system is that its performance across abstracts and articles bodies is stable. Coreference resolution results in minor improvement in system performance. Due to our interest in discourse-level elements, such as speculation/negation and coreference, we provide a more detailed analysis of our system performance in these subtasks.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate the viability of a robust, linguistically-oriented methodology, which clearly distinguishes general semantic interpretation from shared task specific aspects, for biological event extraction. Our error analysis pinpoints some shortcomings, which we plan to address in future work within our incremental system development methodology.

Recognizing speculative language in biomedical research articles: a linguistically motivated perspective

BACKGROUND

Due to the nature of scientific methodology, research articles are rich in speculative and tentative statements, also known as hedges. We explore a linguistically motivated approach to the problem of recognizing such language in biomedical research articles. Our approach draws on prior linguistic work as well as existing lexical resources to create a dictionary of hedging cues and extends it by introducing syntactic patterns. Furthermore, recognizing that hedging cues differ in speculative strength, we assign them weights in two ways: automatically using the information gain (IG) measure and semi-automatically based on their types and centrality to hedging. Weights of hedging cues are used to determine the speculative strength of sentences.

RESULTS

We test our system on two publicly available hedging datasets. On the fruit-fly dataset, we achieve a precision-recall breakeven point (BEP) of 0.85 using the semi-automatic weighting scheme and a lower BEP of 0.80 with the information gain weighting scheme. These results are competitive with the previously reported best results (BEP of 0.85). On the BMC dataset, using semi-automatic weighting yields a BEP of 0.82, a statistically significant improvement (p <0.01) over the previously reported best result (BEP of 0.76), while information gain weighting yields a BEP of 0.70.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that speculative language can be recognized successfully with a linguistically motivated approach and confirms that selection of hedging devices affects the speculative strength of the sentence, which can be captured reasonably by weighting the hedging cues. The improvement obtained on the BMC dataset with a semi-automatic weighting scheme indicates that our linguistically oriented approach is more portable than the machine-learning based approaches. Lower performance obtained with the information gain weighting scheme suggests that this method may benefit from a larger, manually annotated corpus for automatically inducing the weights.