PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 2005BMC Bioinformatics542 citationsOpen Access

Overview of BioCreAtIvE: critical assessment of information extraction for biology

LHLynette HirschmanAYAlexander YehCBChristian Blaschke

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of the first BioCreAtIvE challenge (Critical Assessment of Information Extraction in Biology) was to provide a set of common evaluation tasks to assess the state of the art for text mining applied to biological problems. The results were presented in a workshop held in Granada, Spain March 28-31, 2004. The articles collected in this BMC Bioinformatics supplement entitled "A critical assessment of text mining methods in molecular biology" describe the BioCreAtIvE tasks, systems, results and their independent evaluation. RESULTS: BioCreAtIvE focused on two tasks. The first dealt with extraction of gene or protein names from text, and their mapping into standardized gene identifiers for three model organism databases (fly, mouse, yeast). The second task addressed issues of functional annotation, requiring systems to identify specific text passages that supported Gene Ontology annotations for specific proteins, given full text articles. CONCLUSION: The first BioCreAtIvE assessment achieved a high level of international participation (27 groups from 10 countries). The assessment provided state-of-the-art performance results for a basic task (gene name finding and normalization), where the best systems achieved a balanced 80% precision / recall or better, which potentially makes them suitable for real applications in biology. The results for the advanced task (functional annotation from free text) were significantly lower, demonstrating the current limitations of text-mining approaches where knowledge extrapolation and interpretation are required. In addition, an important contribution of BioCreAtIvE has been the creation and release of training and test data sets for both tasks. There are 22 articles in this special issue, including six that provide analyses of results or data quality for the data sets, including a novel inter-annotator consistency assessment for the test set used in task 2.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hirschman et al. (2005) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0711d985d51e7cc7583d06https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-6-s1-s1
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1BioCreAtIvE Task 1A: gene mention finding evaluation2005 · 210 citations
  2. 2Identifying gene and protein mentions in text using conditional random fields2005 · 225 citations
  3. 3Recognition of protein/gene names from text using an ensemble of classifiers2005 · 96 citations
  4. 4Gene/protein name recognition based on support vector machine using dictionary as features2005 · 87 citations
  5. 5Exploring the boundaries: gene and protein identification in biomedical text2005 · 109 citations