MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133615853 · doi:10.3115/1567619.1567623

Term generalization and synonym resolution for biological abstracts

2006· article· en· W2133615853 on OpenAlexafffund
Alona Fyshe, Duane Szafron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsComputer scienceSynonym (taxonomy)OntologyInformation retrievalTask (project management)HierarchyGeneralizationCategorizationGene ontologyWordNetText categorizationField (mathematics)Function (biology)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingGeneBiologyMathematicsGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of molecular biology is growing at an astounding rate and research findings are being deposited into public databases, such as Swiss-Prot. Many of the over 200,000 protein entries in Swiss-Prot 49.1 lack annotations such as subcellular localization or function, but the vast majority have references to journal abstracts describing related research. These abstracts represent a huge amount of information that could be used to generate annotations for proteins automatically. Training classifiers to perform text categorization on abstracts is one way to accomplish this task. We present a method for improving text classification for biological journal abstracts by generating additional text features using the knowledge represented in a biological concept hierarchy (the Gene Ontology). The structure of the ontology, as well as the synonyms recorded in it, are leveraged by our simple technique to significantly improve the F-measure of subcellular localization text classifiers by as much as 0.078 and we achieve F-measures as high as 0.935.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207