Saber A Akhondi1, Kristina M Hettne2, Eelke van der Horst2, Erik M van Mulligen1, Jan A Kors1. 1. Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam, CA 3000, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, Leiden, RC 2300, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The past decade has seen an upsurge in the number of publications in chemistry. The ever-swelling volume of available documents makes it increasingly hard to extract relevant new information from such unstructured texts. The BioCreative CHEMDNER challenge invites the development of systems for the automatic recognition of chemicals in text (CEM task) and for ranking the recognized compounds at the document level (CDI task). We investigated an ensemble approach where dictionary-based named entity recognition is used along with grammar-based recognizers to extract compounds from text. We assessed the performance of ten different commercial and publicly available lexical resources using an open source indexing system (Peregrine), in combination with three different chemical compound recognizers and a set of regular expressions to recognize chemical database identifiers. The effect of different stop-word lists, case-sensitivity matching, and use of chunking information was also investigated. We focused on lexical resources that provide chemical structure information. To rank the different compounds found in a text, we used a term confidence score based on the normalized ratio of the term frequencies in chemical and non-chemical journals. RESULTS: The use of stop-word lists greatly improved the performance of the dictionary-based recognition, but there was no additional benefit from using chunking information. A combination of ChEBI and HMDB as lexical resources, the LeadMine tool for grammar-based recognition, and the regular expressions, outperformed any of the individual systems. On the test set, the F-scores were 77.8% (recall 71.2%, precision 85.8%) for the CEM task and 77.6% (recall 71.7%, precision 84.6%) for the CDI task. Missed terms were mainly due to tokenization issues, poor recognition of formulas, and term conjunctions. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an ensemble system that combines dictionary-based and grammar-based approaches for chemical named entity recognition, outperforming any of the individual systems that we considered. The system is able to provide structure information for most of the compounds that are found. Improved tokenization and better recognition of specific entity types is likely to further improve system performance.
BACKGROUND: The past decade has seen an upsurge in the number of publications in chemistry. The ever-swelling volume of available documents makes it increasingly hard to extract relevant new information from such unstructured texts. The BioCreative CHEMDNER challenge invites the development of systems for the automatic recognition of chemicals in text (CEM task) and for ranking the recognized compounds at the document level (CDI task). We investigated an ensemble approach where dictionary-based named entity recognition is used along with grammar-based recognizers to extract compounds from text. We assessed the performance of ten different commercial and publicly available lexical resources using an open source indexing system (Peregrine), in combination with three different chemical compound recognizers and a set of regular expressions to recognize chemical database identifiers. The effect of different stop-word lists, case-sensitivity matching, and use of chunking information was also investigated. We focused on lexical resources that provide chemical structure information. To rank the different compounds found in a text, we used a term confidence score based on the normalized ratio of the term frequencies in chemical and non-chemical journals. RESULTS: The use of stop-word lists greatly improved the performance of the dictionary-based recognition, but there was no additional benefit from using chunking information. A combination of ChEBI and HMDB as lexical resources, the LeadMine tool for grammar-based recognition, and the regular expressions, outperformed any of the individual systems. On the test set, the F-scores were 77.8% (recall 71.2%, precision 85.8%) for the CEM task and 77.6% (recall 71.7%, precision 84.6%) for the CDI task. Missed terms were mainly due to tokenization issues, poor recognition of formulas, and term conjunctions. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an ensemble system that combines dictionary-based and grammar-based approaches for chemical named entity recognition, outperforming any of the individual systems that we considered. The system is able to provide structure information for most of the compounds that are found. Improved tokenization and better recognition of specific entity types is likely to further improve system performance.
Entities:
Keywords:
BioCreative; CHEMDNER; Chemical compounds; Chemical databases; Chemical dictionaries; Chemical identifiers; Chemical structure; Drugs; MOL files; Named entity recognition
Authors: Kristina M Hettne; Antony J Williams; Erik M van Mulligen; Jos Kleinjans; Valery Tkachenko; Jan A Kors Journal: J Cheminform Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 5.514
Authors: David S Wishart; Dan Tzur; Craig Knox; Roman Eisner; An Chi Guo; Nelson Young; Dean Cheng; Kevin Jewell; David Arndt; Summit Sawhney; Chris Fung; Lisa Nikolai; Mike Lewis; Marie-Aude Coutouly; Ian Forsythe; Peter Tang; Savita Shrivastava; Kevin Jeroncic; Paul Stothard; Godwin Amegbey; David Block; David D Hau; James Wagner; Jessica Miniaci; Melisa Clements; Mulu Gebremedhin; Natalie Guo; Ying Zhang; Gavin E Duggan; Glen D Macinnis; Alim M Weljie; Reza Dowlatabadi; Fiona Bamforth; Derrick Clive; Russ Greiner; Liang Li; Tom Marrie; Brian D Sykes; Hans J Vogel; Lori Querengesser Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Christopher Funk; William Baumgartner; Benjamin Garcia; Christophe Roeder; Michael Bada; K Bretonnel Cohen; Lawrence E Hunter; Karin Verspoor Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Martin Krallinger; Obdulia Rabal; Florian Leitner; Miguel Vazquez; David Salgado; Zhiyong Lu; Robert Leaman; Yanan Lu; Donghong Ji; Daniel M Lowe; Roger A Sayle; Riza Theresa Batista-Navarro; Rafal Rak; Torsten Huber; Tim Rocktäschel; Sérgio Matos; David Campos; Buzhou Tang; Hua Xu; Tsendsuren Munkhdalai; Keun Ho Ryu; S V Ramanan; Senthil Nathan; Slavko Žitnik; Marko Bajec; Lutz Weber; Matthias Irmer; Saber A Akhondi; Jan A Kors; Shuo Xu; Xin An; Utpal Kumar Sikdar; Asif Ekbal; Masaharu Yoshioka; Thaer M Dieb; Miji Choi; Karin Verspoor; Madian Khabsa; C Lee Giles; Hongfang Liu; Komandur Elayavilli Ravikumar; Andre Lamurias; Francisco M Couto; Hong-Jie Dai; Richard Tzong-Han Tsai; Caglar Ata; Tolga Can; Anabel Usié; Rui Alves; Isabel Segura-Bedmar; Paloma Martínez; Julen Oyarzabal; Alfonso Valencia Journal: J Cheminform Date: 2015-01-19 Impact factor: 5.514
Authors: Nigam H Shah; Nipun Bhatia; Clement Jonquet; Daniel Rubin; Annie P Chiang; Mark A Musen Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2009-09-17 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Saber A Akhondi; Hinnerk Rey; Markus Schwörer; Michael Maier; John Toomey; Heike Nau; Gabriele Ilchmann; Mark Sheehan; Matthias Irmer; Claudia Bobach; Marius Doornenbal; Michelle Gregory; Jan A Kors Journal: Database (Oxford) Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jiayuan He; Dat Quoc Nguyen; Saber A Akhondi; Christian Druckenbrodt; Camilo Thorne; Ralph Hoessel; Zubair Afzal; Zenan Zhai; Biaoyan Fang; Hiyori Yoshikawa; Ameer Albahem; Lawrence Cavedon; Trevor Cohn; Timothy Baldwin; Karin Verspoor Journal: Front Res Metr Anal Date: 2021-03-25
Authors: Saber A Akhondi; Ewoud Pons; Zubair Afzal; Herman van Haagen; Benedikt F H Becker; Kristina M Hettne; Erik M van Mulligen; Jan A Kors Journal: Database (Oxford) Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.451