EXPLORING A SUBGRAPH MATCHING APPROACH FOR EXTRACTING BIOLOGICAL EVENTS FROM LITERATURE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important task in biological information extraction is to identify descriptions of biological relations and events involving genes or proteins. In this work, we propose a graph‐based approach to automatically learn rules for detecting biological events in the life science literature. The event rules are learned by identifying the key contextual dependencies from full parsing of annotated text. The detection is performed by searching for isomorphism between event rules and the dependency graphs of complete sentences. When applying our approach to the data sets of the Task 1 of the BioNLP‐ST 2009, we achieved a 40.71% F ‐score in detecting biological events across nine event types. Our 56.32% precision is comparable with the state‐of‐the‐art systems. The approach may also be generalized to extract events from other domains where training data are available because it requires neither manual intervention nor external domain‐specific resources. The subgraph matching algorithm we developed is released under the new BSD license and can be downloaded from http://esmalgorithm.sourceforge.net .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it