How to link ontologies and protein-protein interactions to literature: text-mining approaches and the BioCreative experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing interest in developing ontologies and controlled vocabularies to improve the efficiency and consistency of manual literature curation, to enable more formal biocuration workflow results and ultimately to improve analysis of biological data. Two ontologies that have been successfully used for this purpose are the Gene Ontology (GO) for annotating aspects of gene products and the Molecular Interaction ontology (PSI-MI) used by databases that archive protein-protein interactions. The examination of protein interactions has proven to be extremely promising for the understanding of cellular processes. Manual mapping of information from the biomedical literature to bio-ontology terms is one of the most challenging components in the curation pipeline. It requires that expert curators interpret the natural language descriptions contained in articles and infer their semantic equivalents in the ontology (controlled vocabulary). Since manual curation is a time-consuming process, there is strong motivation to implement text-mining techniques to automatically extract annotations from free text. A range of text mining strategies has been devised to assist in the automated extraction of biological data. These strategies either recognize technical terms used recurrently in the literature and propose them as candidates for inclusion in ontologies, or retrieve passages that serve as evidential support for annotating an ontology term, e.g. from the PSI-MI or GO controlled vocabularies. Here, we provide a general overview of current text-mining methods to automatically extract annotations of GO and PSI-MI ontology terms in the context of the BioCreative (Critical Assessment of Information Extraction Systems in Biology) challenge. Special emphasis is given to protein-protein interaction data and PSI-MI terms referring to interaction detection methods.
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 | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".