Automatic Extraction of Medication Mentions from Tweets—Overview of the BioCreative VII Shared Task 3 Competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the outcomes of the shared task competition BioCreative VII (Task 3) focusing on the extraction of medication names from a Twitter user's publicly available tweets (the user's 'timeline'). In general, detecting health-related tweets is notoriously challenging for natural language processing tools. The main challenge, aside from the informality of the language used, is that people tweet about any and all topics, and most of their tweets are not related to health. Thus, finding those tweets in a user's timeline that mention specific health-related concepts such as medications requires addressing extreme imbalance. Task 3 called for detecting tweets in a user's timeline that mentions a medication name and, for each detected mention, extracting its span. The organizers made available a corpus consisting of 182 049 tweets publicly posted by 212 Twitter users with all medication mentions manually annotated. The corpus exhibits the natural distribution of positive tweets, with only 442 tweets (0.2%) mentioning a medication. This task was an opportunity for participants to evaluate methods that are robust to class imbalance beyond the simple lexical match. A total of 65 teams registered, and 16 teams submitted a system run. This study summarizes the corpus created by the organizers and the approaches taken by the participating teams for this challenge. The corpus is freely available at https://biocreative.bioinformatics.udel.edu/tasks/biocreative-vii/track-3/. The methods and the results of the competing systems are analyzed with a focus on the approaches taken for learning from class-imbalanced data.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.017 |
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".