Biomedical subjects
Lynette Hirschman
Publications and source records attributed to Lynette Hirschman.
Overview of BioCreAtIvE: critical assessment of information extraction for biology.
BACKGROUND: The goal of the first BioCreAtIvE challenge (Critical Assessment of Information Extraction in Biology) was to provide a set of common evaluation tasks to assess the state of the art for text mining applied to biological problems. The results were presented in a workshop held in Granada, Spain March 28-31, 2004. The articles collected in this BMC Bioinformatics supplement entitled "A critical assessment of text mining methods in molecular biology" describe the BioCreAtIvE tasks, systems, results and their independent evaluation. RESULTS: BioCreAtIvE focused on two tasks. The first dealt with extraction of gene or protein names from text, and their mapping into standardized gene identifiers for three model organism databases (fly, mouse, yeast). The second task addressed issues of functional annotation, requiring systems to identify specific text passages that supported Gene Ontology annotations for specific proteins, given full text articles. CONCLUSION: The first BioCreAtIvE assessment achieved a high level of international participation (27 groups from 10 countries). The assessment provided state-of-the-art performance results for a basic task (gene name finding and normalization), where the best systems achieved a balanced 80% precision / recall or better, which potentially makes them suitable for real applications in biology. The results for the advanced task (functional annotation from free text) were significantly lower, demonstrating the current limitations of text-mining approaches where knowledge extrapolation and interpretation are required. In addition, an important contribution of BioCreAtIvE has been the creation and release of training and test data sets for both tasks. There are 22 articles in this special issue, including six that provide analyses of results or data quality for the data sets, including a novel inter-annotator consistency assessment for the test set used in task 2.
Overview of BioCreAtIvE task 1B: normalized gene lists.
BACKGROUND: Our goal in BioCreAtIve has been to assess the state of the art in text mining, with emphasis on applications that reflect real biological applications, e.g., the curation process for model organism databases. This paper summarizes the BioCreAtIvE task 1B, the "Normalized Gene List" task, which was inspired by the gene list supplied for each curated paper in a model organism database. The task was to produce the correct list of unique gene identifiers for the genes and gene products mentioned in sets of abstracts from three model organisms (Yeast, Fly, and Mouse). RESULTS: Eight groups fielded systems for three data sets (Yeast, Fly, and Mouse). For Yeast, the top scoring system (out of 15) achieved 0.92 F-measure (harmonic mean of precision and recall); for Mouse and Fly, the task was more difficult, due to larger numbers of genes, more ambiguity in the gene naming conventions (particularly for Fly), and complex gene names (for Mouse). For Fly, the top F-measure was 0.82 out of 11 systems and for Mouse, it was 0.79 out of 16 systems. CONCLUSION: This assessment demonstrates that multiple groups were able to perform a real biological task across a range of organisms. The performance was dependent on the organism, and specifically on the naming conventions associated with each organism. These results hold out promise that the technology can provide partial automation of the curation process in the near future.
Data preparation and interannotator agreement: BioCreAtIvE task 1B.
BACKGROUND: We prepared and evaluated training and test materials for an assessment of text mining methods in molecular biology. The goal of the assessment was to evaluate the ability of automated systems to generate a list of unique gene identifiers from PubMed abstracts for the three model organisms Fly, Mouse, and Yeast. This paper describes the preparation and evaluation of answer keys for training and testing. These consisted of lists of normalized gene names found in the abstracts, generated by adapting the gene list for the full journal articles found in the model organism databases. For the training dataset, the gene list was pruned automatically to remove gene names not found in the abstract; for the testing dataset, it was further refined by manual annotation by annotators provided with guidelines. A critical step in interpreting the results of an assessment is to evaluate the quality of the data preparation. We did this by careful assessment of interannotator agreement and the use of answer pooling of participant results to improve the quality of the final testing dataset. RESULTS: Interannotator analysis on a small dataset showed that our gene lists for Fly and Yeast were good (87% and 91% three-way agreement) but the Mouse gene list had many conflicts (mostly omissions), which resulted in errors (69% interannotator agreement). By comparing and pooling answers from the participant systems, we were able to add an additional check on the test data; this allowed us to find additional errors, especially in Mouse. This led to 1% change in the Yeast and Fly "gold standard" answer keys, but to an 8% change in the mouse answer key. CONCLUSION: We found that clear annotation guidelines are important, along with careful interannotator experiments, to validate the generated gene lists. Also, abstracts alone are a poor resource for identifying genes in paper, containing only a fraction of genes mentioned in the full text (25% for Fly, 36% for Mouse). We found that there are intrinsic differences between the model organism databases related to the number of synonymous terms and also to curation criteria. Finally, we found that answer pooling was much faster and allowed us to identify more conflicting genes than interannotator analysis.
BioCreAtIvE task 1A: gene mention finding evaluation.
BACKGROUND: The biological research literature is a major repository of knowledge. As the amount of literature increases, it will get harder to find the information of interest on a particular topic. There has been an increasing amount of work on text mining this literature, but comparing this work is hard because of a lack of standards for making comparisons. To address this, we worked with colleagues at the Protein Design Group, CNB-CSIC, Madrid to develop BioCreAtIvE (Critical Assessment for Information Extraction in Biology), an open common evaluation of systems on a number of biological text mining tasks. We report here on task 1A, which deals with finding mentions of genes and related entities in text. "Finding mentions" is a basic task, which can be used as a building block for other text mining tasks. The task makes use of data and evaluation software provided by the (US) National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). RESULTS: 15 teams took part in task 1A. A number of teams achieved scores over 80% F-measure (balanced precision and recall). The teams that tried to use their task 1A systems to help on other BioCreAtIvE tasks reported mixed results. CONCLUSION: The 80% plus F-measure results are good, but still somewhat lag the best scores achieved in some other domains such as newswire, due in part to the complexity and length of gene names, compared to person or organization names in newswire.
Gene name identification and normalization using a model organism database.
Biology has now become an information science, and researchers are increasingly dependent on expert-curated biological databases to organize the findings from the published literature. We report here on a series of experiments related to the application of natural language processing to aid in the curation process for FlyBase. We focused on listing the normalized form of genes and gene products discussed in an article. We broke this into two steps: gene mention tagging in text, followed by normalization of gene names. For gene mention tagging, we adopted a statistical approach. To provide training data, we were able to reverse engineer the gene lists from the associated articles and abstracts, to generate text labeled (imperfectly) with gene mentions. We then evaluated the quality of the noisy training data (precision of 78%, recall 88%) and the quality of the HMM tagger output trained on this noisy data (precision 78%, recall 71%). In order to generate normalized gene lists, we explored two approaches. First, we explored simple pattern matching based on synonym lists to obtain a high recall/low precision system (recall 95%, precision 2%). Using a series of filters, we were able to improve precision to 50% with a recall of 72% (balanced F-measure of 0.59). Our second approach combined the HMM gene mention tagger with various filters to remove ambiguous mentions; this approach achieved an F-measure of 0.72 (precision 88%, recall 61%). These experiments indicate that the lexical resources provided by FlyBase are complete enough to achieve high recall on the gene list task, and that normalization requires accurate disambiguation; different strategies for tagging and normalization trade off recall for precision.
Evaluation of text data mining for database curation: lessons learned from the KDD Challenge Cup.
MOTIVATION: The biological literature is a major repository of knowledge. Many biological databases draw much of their content from a careful curation of this literature. However, as the volume of literature increases, the burden of curation increases. Text mining may provide useful tools to assist in the curation process. To date, the lack of standards has made it impossible to determine whether text mining techniques are sufficiently mature to be useful. RESULTS: We report on a Challenge Evaluation task that we created for the Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) Challenge Cup. We provided a training corpus of 862 articles consisting of journal articles curated in FlyBase, along with the associated lists of genes and gene products, as well as the relevant data fields from FlyBase. For the test, we provided a corpus of 213 new ('blind') articles; the 18 participating groups provided systems that flagged articles for curation, based on whether the article contained experimental evidence for gene expression products. We report on the evaluation results and describe the techniques used by the top performing groups.
Rutabaga by any other name: extracting biological names.
As the pace of biological research accelerates, biologists are becoming increasingly reliant on computers to manage the information explosion. Biologists communicate their research findings by relying on precise biological terms; these terms then provide indices into the literature and across the growing number of biological databases. This article examines emerging techniques to access biological resources through extraction of entity names and relations among them. Information extraction has been an active area of research in natural language processing and there are promising results for information extraction applied to news stories, e.g., balanced precision and recall in the 93-95% range for identifying person, organization and location names. But these results do not seem to transfer directly to biological names, where results remain in the 75-80% range. Multiple factors may be involved, including absence of shared training and test sets for rigorous measures of progress, lack of annotated training data specific to biological tasks, pervasive ambiguity of terms, frequent introduction of new terms, and a mismatch between evaluation tasks as defined for news and real biological problems. We present evidence from a simple lexical matching exercise that illustrates some specific problems encountered when identifying biological names. We conclude by outlining a research agenda to raise performance of named entity tagging to a level where it can be used to perform tasks of biological importance.
Information extraction in molecular biology.
Information extraction has become a very active field in bioinformatics recently and a number of interesting papers have been published. Most of the efforts have been concentrated on a few specific problems, such as the detection of protein-protein interactions and the analysis of DNA expression arrays, although it is obvious that there are many other interesting areas of potential application (document retrieval, protein functional description, and detection of disease-related genes to name a few). Paradoxically, these exciting developments have not yet crystallised into general agreement on a set of standard evaluation criteria, such as the ones developed in fields such as protein structure prediction, which makes it very difficult to compare performance across these different systems. In this review we introduce the general field of information extraction, we outline the status of the applications in molecular biology, and we then discuss some ideas about possible standards for evaluation that are needed for the future development of the field.
Accomplishments and challenges in literature data mining for biology.
We review recent results in literature data mining for biology and discuss the need and the steps for a challenge evaluation for this field. Literature data mining has progressed from simple recognition of terms to extraction of interaction relationships from complex sentences, and has broadened from recognition of protein interactions to a range of problems such as improving homology search, identifying cellular location, and so on. To encourage participation and accelerate progress in this expanding field, we propose creating challenge evaluations, and we describe two specific applications in this context.