4.7 Article

MeSHLabeler: improving the accuracy of large-scale MeSH indexing by integrating diverse evidence

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 31, Issue 12, Pages 339-347

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv237

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61170097, 61332013]
  2. Scientific Research Starting Foundation for Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, Ministry of Education, China
  3. JSPS KAKENHI, Japan [24300054]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation: Medical Subject Headings (MeSHs) are used by National Library of Medicine (NLM) to index almost all citations in MEDLINE, which greatly facilitates the applications of biomedical information retrieval and text mining. To reduce the time and financial cost of manual annotation, NLM has developed a software package, Medical Text Indexer (MTI), for assisting MeSH annotation, which uses k-nearest neighbors (KNN), pattern matching and indexing rules. Other types of information, such as prediction by MeSH classifiers (trained separately), can also be used for automatic MeSH annotation. However, existing methods cannot effectively integrate multiple evidence for MeSH annotation. Methods: We propose a novel framework, MeSHLabeler, to integrate multiple evidence for accurate MeSH annotation by using 'learning to rank'. Evidence includes numerous predictions from MeSH classifiers, KNN, pattern matching, MTI and the correlation between different MeSH terms, etc. Each MeSH classifier is trained independently, and thus prediction scores from different classifiers are incomparable. To address this issue, we have developed an effective score normalization procedure to improve the prediction accuracy. Results: MeSHLabeler won the first place in Task 2A of 2014 BioASQ challenge, achieving the Micro F-measure of 0.6248 for 9,040 citations provided by the BioASQ challenge. Note that this accuracy is around 9.15% higher than 0.5724, obtained by MTI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available