Literature DB >> 24076369

Determining the difficulty of Word Sense Disambiguation.

Bridget T McInnes1, Mark Stevenson2.   

Abstract

Automatic processing of biomedical documents is made difficult by the fact that many of the terms they contain are ambiguous. Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) systems attempt to resolve these ambiguities and identify the correct meaning. However, the published literature on WSD systems for biomedical documents report considerable differences in performance for different terms. The development of WSD systems is often expensive with respect to acquiring the necessary training data. It would therefore be useful to be able to predict in advance which terms WSD systems are likely to perform well or badly on. This paper explores various methods for estimating the performance of WSD systems on a wide range of ambiguous biomedical terms (including ambiguous words/phrases and abbreviations). The methods include both supervised and unsupervised approaches. The supervised approaches make use of information from labeled training data while the unsupervised ones rely on the UMLS Metathesaurus. The approaches are evaluated by comparing their predictions about how difficult disambiguation will be for ambiguous terms against the output of two WSD systems. We find the supervised methods are the best predictors of WSD difficulty, but are limited by their dependence on labeled training data. The unsupervised methods all perform well in some situations and can be applied more widely.
Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ambiguity; Biomedical documents; NLP; Natural Language Processing; WSD; Word Sense Disambiguation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24076369     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.09.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Inform        ISSN: 1532-0464            Impact factor:   6.317


  5 in total

1.  deepBioWSD: effective deep neural word sense disambiguation of biomedical text data.

Authors:  Ahmad Pesaranghader; Stan Matwin; Marina Sokolova; Ali Pesaranghader
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  SIFR annotator: ontology-based semantic annotation of French biomedical text and clinical notes.

Authors:  Andon Tchechmedjiev; Amine Abdaoui; Vincent Emonet; Stella Zevio; Clement Jonquet
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  The Implicitome: A Resource for Rationalizing Gene-Disease Associations.

Authors:  Kristina M Hettne; Mark Thompson; Herman H H B M van Haagen; Eelke van der Horst; Rajaram Kaliyaperumal; Eleni Mina; Zuotian Tatum; Jeroen F J Laros; Erik M van Mulligen; Martijn Schuemie; Emmelien Aten; Tong Shu Li; Richard Bruskiewich; Benjamin M Good; Andrew I Su; Jan A Kors; Johan den Dunnen; Gert-Jan B van Ommen; Marco Roos; Peter A C 't Hoen; Barend Mons; Erik A Schultes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Complexities, variations, and errors of numbering within clinical notes: the potential impact on information extraction and cohort-identification.

Authors:  David A Hanauer; Qiaozhu Mei; V G Vinod Vydiswaran; Karandeep Singh; Zach Landis-Lewis; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 2.796

5.  Adeft: Acromine-based Disambiguation of Entities from Text with applications to the biomedical literature.

Authors:  Albert Steppi; Benjamin M Gyori; John A Bachman
Journal:  J Open Source Softw       Date:  2020-01-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.