Improving clinical named entity recognition in Chinese using the graphical and phonetic feature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical Named Entity Recognition is to find the name of diseases, body parts and other related terms from the given text. Because Chinese language is quite different with English language, the machine cannot simply get the graphical and phonetic information form Chinese characters. The method for Chinese should be different from that for English. Chinese characters present abundant information with the graphical features, recent research on Chinese word embedding tries to use graphical information as subword. This paper uses both graphical and phonetic features to improve Chinese Clinical Named Entity Recognition based on the presence of phono-semantic characters. METHODS: This paper proposed three different embedding models and tested them on the annotated data. The data have been divided into two sections for exploring the effect of the proportion of phono-semantic characters. RESULTS: The model using primary radical and pinyin can improve Clinical Named Entity Recognition in Chinese and get the F-measure of 0.712. More phono-semantic characters does not give a better result. CONCLUSIONS: The paper proves that the use of the combination of graphical and phonetic features can improve the Clinical Named Entity Recognition in Chinese.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".