4.6 Article

A multilingual gold-standard corpus for biomedical concept recognition: the Mantra GSC

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocv037

关键词

gold-standard corpus; multilinguality; inter-annotator agreement; concept identification; semantic enrichment

资金

  1. Mantra project (STREP) under EU [296410, FP7 ICT-2011.4.1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To create a multilingual gold-standard corpus for biomedical concept recognition. Materials and methods We selected text units from different parallel corpora (Medline abstract titles, drug labels, biomedical patent claims) in English, French, German, Spanish, and Dutch. Three annotators per language independently annotated the biomedical concepts, based on a subset of the Unified Medical Language System and covering a wide range of semantic groups. To reduce the annotation workload, automatically generated preannotations were provided. Individual annotations were automatically harmonized and then adjudicated, and cross-language consistency checks were carried out to arrive at the final annotations. Results The number of final annotations was 5530. Inter-annotator agreement scores indicate good agreement (median F-score 0.79), and are similar to those between individual annotators and the gold standard. The automatically generated harmonized annotation set for each language performed equally well as the best annotator for that language. Discussion The use of automatic preannotations, harmonized annotations, and parallel corpora helped to keep the manual annotation efforts manageable. The inter-annotator agreement scores provide a reference standard for gauging the performance of automatic annotation techniques. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first gold-standard corpus for biomedical concept recognition in languages other than English. Other distinguishing features are the wide variety of semantic groups that are being covered, and the diversity of text genres that were annotated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据