Towards reliable named entity recognition in the biomedical domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Automatic biomedical named entity recognition (BioNER) is a key task in biomedical information extraction (IE). For some time, state-of-the-art BioNER has been dominated by machine learning methods, particularly conditional random fields (CRFs), with a recent focus on deep learning. However, recent work has suggested that the high performance of CRFs for BioNER may not generalize to corpora other than the one it was trained on. In our analysis, we find that a popular deep learning-based approach to BioNER, known as bidirectional long short-term memory network-conditional random field (BiLSTM-CRF), is correspondingly poor at generalizing - often dramatically overfitting the corpus it was trained on. To address this, we evaluate three modifications of BiLSTM-CRF for BioNER to alleviate overfitting and improve generalization: improved regularization via variational dropout, transfer learning, and multi-task learning. Results: We measure the effect that each strategy has when training/testing on the same corpus ("in-corpus" performance) and when training on one corpus and evaluating on another ("out-of-corpus" performance), our measure of the models ability to generalize. We found that variational dropout improves out-of-corpus performance by an average of 4.62%, transfer learning by 6.48% and multi-task learning by 8.42%. The maximal increase we identified combines multi-task learning and variational dropout, which boosts out-of-corpus performance by 10.75%. Furthermore, we make available a new open-source tool, called Saber, that implements our best BioNER models. Availability: Source code for our biomedical IE tool is available at https://github.com/BaderLab/saber. Corpora and other resources used in this study are available at https://github.com/BaderLab/Towards- reliable-BioNER.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
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".