| Literature DB >> 35906547 |
Xinyu He1,2,3, Ping Tai4, Hongbin Lu5, Xin Huang6, Yonggong Ren7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biomedical event extraction is a fundamental task in biomedical text mining, which provides inspiration for medicine research and disease prevention. Biomedical events include simple events and complex events. Existing biomedical event extraction methods usually deal with simple events and complex events uniformly, and the performance of complex event extraction is relatively low.Entities:
Keywords: Argument detection; Event extraction; Fine-grained; Multi-level attention; Trigger identification
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35906547 PMCID: PMC9336007 DOI: 10.1186/s12859-022-04854-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.307
Fig. 1A sentence with visualized events provided by BionNLP-ST2013
The static distribution of MLEE corpus
| Data | Train | Validation | Test | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Documents | 206 | 30 | 59 | 295 |
| Sentences | 1825 | 260 | 523 | 2608 |
| Events | 4673 | 668 | 1336 | 6677 |
Fig. 2The distribution of the event types on the MLEE corpus
Performance of different trigger identification models
| Model | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F-score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bi-LSTM | 76.26 ± 0.52 | 72.27 ± 0.41 | 74.21 ± 0.40 |
| Bi-LSTM + SE | 82.81 ± 0.34 | 73.66 ± 0.39 | 77.96 ± 0.36 |
| Bi-LSTM + Att | 81.47 ± 0.41 | 75.55 ± 0.38 | 78.40 ± 0.39 |
| Bi-LSTM + SE + Att | 82.01 ± 0.27 | 78.02 ± 0.29 | 79.96 ± 0.27 |
SE Sentence Embeddings, Att Attention
The effectiveness of multi level attention for event extraction
| Model | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F-score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bi-LSTM | 90.93 ± 0.35 | 38.50 ± 0.41 | 54.09 ± 0.37 |
| Bi-LSTM + WAtt | 90.75 ± 0.22 | 43.00 ± 0.25 | 58.35 ± 0.23 |
| Bi-LSTM + SAtt | 89.69 ± 0.23 | 44.12 ± 0.28 | 59.14 ± 0.27 |
| Bi-LSTM + MultiAtt | 90.24 ± 0.19 | 44.50 ± 0.16 | 59.61 ± 0.18 |
| Bi-LSTM + MultiAtt + Fine-grained | 91.05 ± 0.27 | 44.68 ± 0.31 | 59.94 ± 0.29 |
WAtt Word level attention, SAtt Sentence level attention, MultiAtt Multi level attention
The effectiveness of multi level attention for sub classes
| Event type | F-score (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Word Att | Multi Att | ||
| Complex events | Binding | 65.26 | 73.27 |
| Regulation | 39.47 | 41.29 | |
| Positive_regulation | 41.14 | 43.97 | |
| Negative_regulation | 37.22 | 38.90 | |
| Simple events | Cell_proliferation | 65.67 | 67.65 |
| Development | 74.85 | 77.71 | |
| Blood_vessel_develop | 97.31 | 95.73 | |
| Growth | 33.33 | 33.33 | |
| Death | 53.85 | 56.60 | |
| Breakdown | 64.71 | 70.27 | |
| Remodeling | 66.67 | 66.67 | |
| Synthesis | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Gene_expression | 69.67 | 69.14 | |
| Transcription | 76.19 | 47.06 | |
| Catabolism | 33.33 | 33.33 | |
| Phosphorylation | 85.71 | 67.67 | |
| Dephosphorylation | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Localization | 53.48 | 57.87 | |
| Planned_process | 47.92 | 52.12 | |
Performance comparisons of trigger identification
| Methods | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F-score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM1 [ | 70.79 | 81.69 | 75.84 |
| SVM2 [ | 72.17 | 82.26 | 76.89 |
| EANNP [ | 71.04 | 84.60 | 77.23 |
| CNN [ | 80.60 | 74.23 | 77.82 |
| GRU [ | 79.78 | 78.45 | 79.11 |
| LSTM [ | 81.79 | 77.76 | 79.73 |
| LSTM + CRF [ | 81.76 | 77.71 | 79.68 |
| Two-stage[ | 79.16 | 80.35 | 79.75 |
| 82.01 | 78.02 | 79.96 |
Performance comparisons of event extraction
| Methods | Precision(%) | Recall (%) | F-score(%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pyysalo et al. [ | 62.28 | 49.56 | 55.20 |
| Zhou et al. [ | 55.76 | 59.16 | 57.41 |
| Wang et al. [ | 60.56 | 56.23 | 58.31 |
| 91.05 | 44.68 | 59.94 |
Fig. 4An example of “Binding” type biomedical event
Fig. 3The overall architecture of biomedical event extraction