deepBioWSD: effective deep neural word sense disambiguation of biomedical text data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In biomedicine, there is a wealth of information hidden in unstructured narratives such as research articles and clinical reports. To exploit these data properly, a word sense disambiguation (WSD) algorithm prevents downstream difficulties in the natural language processing applications pipeline. Supervised WSD algorithms largely outperform un- or semisupervised and knowledge-based methods; however, they train 1 separate classifier for each ambiguous term, necessitating a large number of expert-labeled training data, an unattainable goal in medical informatics. To alleviate this need, a single model that shares statistical strength across all instances and scales well with the vocabulary size is desirable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Built on recent advances in deep learning, our deepBioWSD model leverages 1 single bidirectional long short-term memory network that makes sense prediction for any ambiguous term. In the model, first, the Unified Medical Language System sense embeddings will be computed using their text definitions; and then, after initializing the network with these embeddings, it will be trained on all (available) training data collectively. This method also considers a novel technique for automatic collection of training data from PubMed to (pre)train the network in an unsupervised manner. RESULTS: We use the MSH WSD dataset to compare WSD algorithms, with macro and micro accuracies employed as evaluation metrics. deepBioWSD outperforms existing models in biomedical text WSD by achieving the state-of-the-art performance of 96.82% for macro accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the disambiguation improvement and unsupervised training, deepBioWSD depends on considerably less number of expert-labeled data as it learns the target and the context terms jointly. These merit deepBioWSD to be conveniently deployable in real-time biomedical applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".