Difference between revisions of "Cohen and Hersh Briefings in Bioinformatics 2005"
From Cohen Courses
Jump to navigationJump to searchPastStudents (talk | contribs) |
PastStudents (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*** ambiguous words and phrases | *** ambiguous words and phrases | ||
*** multi names | *** multi names | ||
− | ** approaches | + | ** approaches are mainly categorized into three below |
*** lexicon based | *** lexicon based | ||
*** rule based | *** rule based | ||
− | |||
− | |||
*** statistically based | *** statistically based | ||
** performance | ** performance |
Revision as of 23:50, 30 September 2010
Citation
Aaron M. Cohen and William R. Hersh. 2005. A Survey of Current Work in Biomedical Text Mining. Briefings in Bioinformatics. Vol 6. No 1. 57-71.
Online version
Summary
This is a survey paper about biomedical text mining in 2005.
They describe the state of the art in 2005 for each distinct type of text-mining task below.
- Named entity recognition
- Problems
- No complete dictionary for most types of biological named entities
- ambiguous words and phrases
- multi names
- approaches are mainly categorized into three below
- lexicon based
- rule based
- statistically based
- performance
- overall, the performance of gene and protein NER systems is F-scores between 75 and 85 percent.
- Problems
- Text classification
- Synonym and abbreviation extraction
- Relationship extraction
- Hypothesis generation
- Integration frameworks
Related papers
The widely cited Pang et al EMNLP 2002 paper was influenced by this paper - but considers supervised learning techniques. The choice of movie reviews as the domain was suggested by the (relatively) poor performance of Turney's method on movies.
An interesting follow-up paper is Turney and Littman, TOIS 2003 which focuses on evaluation of the technique of using PMI for predicting the semantic orientation of words.