Unsupervised mapping of sentences to biomedical concepts based on integrated information retrieval model and clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structured information revealed by manual annotation of disease descriptions with UMLS meta-thesaurus concepts, can provide high-quality reliable data sources for the research community. While progress in both extent and annotation has been made, only a limited scope of diseases has been annotated, largely because of the required human resources. Since annotating text is time consuming and the variation of disease descriptions makes the annotation task difficult, it is useful to develop systems for automatic mapping of biomedical sentences into an ontology. Our goal is to automatically map biomedical sentences into UMLS disease concepts. Previous methods including statistical methods, are still weaker than dictionary-based simple matching methods. To consider an alternative to both, we demonstrate how the mapping problem can be viewed as a document retrieval problem: under this perspective, the mapping integrates information based on a language model, document frequency, and distance measures. Our improvements are based on a three-step method using information retrieval and clustering. In the first step, we retrieve the top-10 ranked relevant UMLS concept entries using an integrated information retrieval model. In the second step, we cluster the retrieved concept entries according to shared words. In the final step, we select one answer for each cluster using a threshold. Our experiments are promising, and on typical data show a precision of 73.28%, recall of 77.51%, and F-measure of 75.34% significantly outperforming previous methods based on statistics, dictionaries, and the MetaMap by 6.95 to 9.95 percent.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".