RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Automated assignment of specific ontology concepts to mentions in text is a critical task in biomedical natural language processing, and the subject of many open shared tasks. Although the current state of the art involves the use of neural network language models as a post-processing step, the very large number of ontology classes to be recognized and the limited amount of gold-standard training data has impeded the creation of end-to-end systems based entirely on machine learning. Recently, Hailu et al. recast the concept recognition problem as a type of machine translation and demonstrated that sequence-to-sequence machine learning models have the potential to outperform multi-class classification approaches. METHODS: We systematically characterize the factors that contribute to the accuracy and efficiency of several approaches to sequence-to-sequence machine learning through extensive studies of alternative methods and hyperparameter selections. We not only identify the best-performing systems and parameters across a wide variety of ontologies but also provide insights into the widely varying resource requirements and hyperparameter robustness of alternative approaches. Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of such systems suggest promising avenues for future improvements as well as design choices that can increase computational efficiency with small costs in performance. RESULTS: Bidirectional encoder representations from transformers for biomedical text mining (BioBERT) for span detection along with the open-source toolkit for neural machine translation (OpenNMT) for concept normalization achieve state-of-the-art performance for most ontologies annotated in the CRAFT Corpus. This approach uses substantially fewer computational resources, including hardware, memory, and time than several alternative approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Machine translation is a promising avenue for fully machine-learning-based concept recognition that achieves state-of-the-art results on the CRAFT Corpus, evaluated via a direct comparison to previous results from the 2019 CRAFT shared task. Experiments illuminating the reasons for the surprisingly good performance of sequence-to-sequence methods targeting ontology identifiers suggest that further progress may be possible by mapping to alternative target concept representations. All code and models can be found at: https://github.com/UCDenver-ccp/Concept-Recognition-as-Translation .
RESUMEN
Sublanguages are varieties of language that form "subsets" of the general language, typically exhibiting particular types of lexical, semantic, and other restrictions and deviance. SubCAT, the Sublanguage Corpus Analysis Toolkit, assesses the representativeness and closure properties of corpora to analyze the extent to which they are either sublanguages, or representative samples of the general language. The current version of SubCAT contains scripts and applications for assessing lexical closure, morphological closure, sentence type closure, over-represented words, and syntactic deviance. Its operation is illustrated with three case studies concerning scientific journal articles, patents, and clinical records. Materials from two language families are analyzed-English (Germanic), and Bulgarian (Slavic). The software is available at sublanguage.sourceforge.net under a liberal Open Source license.
RESUMEN
For many researchers, the purpose of ontologies is sharing data. This sharing is facilitated when ontologies are available in multiple languages, but inhibited when an ontology is only available in a single language. Ontologies should be accessible to people in multiple languages, since multilingualism is inevitable in any scientific work. Due to resource scarcity, most ontologies of the biomedical domain are available only in English at present. We present techniques to translate Gene Ontology terms from English to German using DBPedia, the Google Translate API for isolated terms, and the Google Translate API for terms in sentential context. Average fluency scores for the three methods were 4.0, 4.4, and 4.5, respectively. Average adequacy scores were 4.0, 4.9, and 4.9.