MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Single Concatenated Input is Better than Indenpendent Multiple-input for CNNs to Predict Chemical-induced Disease Relation from Literature

2020· article· en· W3157414336 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bui Manh Thang, Đặng Thanh Hải

Bibliographic record

VenueVNU Journal of Science Computer Science and Communication Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Foundation for Science and Technology Development
KeywordsConcatenation (mathematics)Computer scienceBiomedical text miningConvolutional neural networkBenchmark (surveying)Relation (database)Named-entity recognitionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingData miningText miningMathematicsTask (project management)Cartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical compounds (drugs) and diseases are among top searched keywords on the PubMed database of biomedical literature by biomedical researchers all over the world (according to a study in 2009). Working with PubMed is essential for researchers to get insights into drugs’ side effects (chemical-induced disease relations (CDR), which is essential for drug safety and toxicity. It is, however, a catastrophic burden for them as PubMed is a huge database of unstructured texts, growing steadily very fast (~28 millions scientific articles currently, approximately two deposited per minute). As a result, biomedical text mining has been empirically demonstrated its great implications in biomedical research communities. Biomedical text has its own distinct challenging properties, attracting much attetion from natural language processing communities. A large-scale study recently in 2018 showed that incorporating information into indenpendent multiple-input layers outperforms concatenating them into a single input layer (for biLSTM), producing better performance when compared to state-of-the-art CDR classifying models. This paper demonstrates that for a CNN it is vice-versa, in which concatenation is better for CDR classification. To this end, we develop a CNN based model with multiple input concatenated for CDR classification. Experimental results on the benchmark dataset demonstrate its outperformance over other recent state-of-the-art CDR classification models. Keywords: Chemical disease relation prediction, Convolutional neural network, Biomedical text mining References [1] Paul SM, S. Mytelka, C.T. Dunwiddie, C.C. Persinger, B.H. Munos, S.R. Lindborg, A.L. Schacht, How to improve R&D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge, Nat Rev Drug Discov. 9(3) (2010) 203-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3078. [2] J.A. DiMasi, New drug development in the United States from 1963 to 1999, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 69 (2001) 286-296. https://doi.org/10.1067/mcp.2001.115132. [3] C.P. Adams, V. Van Brantner, Estimating the cost of new drug development: Is it really $802 million? Health Affairs 25 (2006) 420-428. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.420. [4] R.I. Doğan, G.C. Murray, A. Névéol et al., "Understanding PubMed user search behavior through log analysis", Oxford Database, 2009. [5] G.K. Savova, J.J. Masanz, P.V. Ogren et al., "Mayo clinical text analysis and knowledge extraction system (cTAKES): Architecture, component evaluation and applications", Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2010. [6] T.C. Wiegers, A.P. Davis, C.J. Mattingly, Collaborative biocuration-text mining development task for document prioritization for curation, Database 22 (2012) pp. bas037. [7] N. Kang, B. Singh, C. Bui et al., "Knowledge-based extraction of adverse drug events from biomedical text", BMC Bioinformatics 15, 2014. [8] A. Névéol, R.L. Doğan, Z. Lu, "Semi-automatic semantic annotation of PubMed queries: A study on quality, Efficiency, Satisfaction", Journal of Biomedical Informatics 44, 2011. [9] L. Hirschman, G.A. Burns, M. Krallinger, C. Arighi, K.B. Cohen et al., Text mining for the biocuration workflow, Database Apr 18, 2012, pp. bas020. [10] Wei et al., "Overview of the BioCreative V Chemical Disease Relation (CDR) Task", Proceedings of the Fifth BioCreative Challenge Evaluation Workshop, 2015. [11] P. Verga, E. Strubell, A. McCallum, Simultaneously Self-Attending to All Mentions for Full-Abstract Biological Relation Extraction, In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies 1 (2018) 872-884. [12] Y. Shen, X. Huang, Attention-based convolutional neural network for semantic relation extraction, In: Proceedings of COLING 2016, the Twenty-sixth International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee, Osaka, Japan, 2016, pp. 2526-2536. [13] Y. Peng, Z. Lu, Deep learning for extracting protein-protein interactions from biomedical literature, In: Proceedings of the BioNLP 2017 Workshop, Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, 2016, pp. 29-38. [14] S. Liu, F. Shen, R. Komandur Elayavilli, Y. Wang, M. Rastegar-Mojarad, V. Chaudhary, H. Liu, Extracting chemical-protein relations using attention-based neural networks, Database, 2018. [15] H. Zhou, H. Deng, L. Chen, Y. Yang, C. Jia, D. Huang, Exploiting syntactic and semantics information for chemical-disease relation extraction, Database, 2016, pp. baw048. [16] S. Liu, B. Tang, Q. Chen et al., Drug–drug interaction extraction via convolutional neural networks, Comput, Math, Methods Med, Vol (2016) 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6918381. [17] L. Wang, Z. Cao, G. De Meloet al., Relation classification via multi-level attention CNNs, In: Proceedings of the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 1 (2016) 1298-1307. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1123. [18] J. Gu, F. Sun, L. Qian et al., Chemical-induced disease relation extraction via convolutional neural network, Database (2017) 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax024. [19] H.Q. Le, D.C. Can, S.T. Vu, T.H. Dang, M.T. Pilehvar, N. Collier, Large-scale Exploration of Neural Relation Classification Architectures, In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2018, pp. 2266-2277. [20] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, P. Haffner, Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition, In Proceedings of the IEEE. 86(11) (1998) 2278-2324. [21] Y. Kim, Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification, ArXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882. [22] C. Nagesh, Panyam, Karin Verspoor, Trevor Cohn and Kotagiri Ramamohanarao, Exploiting graph kernels for high performance biomedical relation extraction, Journal of biomedical semantics 9(1) (2018) 7. [23] H. Zhou, H. Deng, L. Chen, Y. Yang, C. Jia, D. Huang, Exploiting syntactic and semantics information for chemical-disease relation extraction, Database, 2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVNU Journal of Science Computer Science and Communication EngineeringSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207