IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0133715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hedge Scope Detection in Biomedical Texts: An Effective Dependency-Based Method

Author

Listed:
  • Huiwei Zhou
  • Huijie Deng
  • Degen Huang
  • Minling Zhu

Abstract

Hedge detection is used to distinguish uncertain information from facts, which is of essential importance in biomedical information extraction. The task of hedge detection is often divided into two subtasks: detecting uncertain cues and their linguistic scope. Hedge scope is a sequence of tokens including the hedge cue in a sentence. Previous hedge scope detection methods usually take all tokens in a sentence as candidate boundaries, which inevitably generate a large number of negatives for classifiers. The imbalanced instances seriously mislead classifiers and result in lower performance. This paper proposes a dependency-based candidate boundary selection method (DCBS), which selects the most likely tokens as candidate boundaries and removes the exceptional tokens which have less potential to improve the performance based on dependency tree. In addition, we employ the composite kernel to integrate lexical and syntactic information and demonstrate the effectiveness of structured syntactic features for hedge scope detection. Experiments on the CoNLL-2010 Shared Task corpus show that our method achieves 71.92% F1-score on the golden standard cues, which is 4.11% higher than the system without using DCBS. Although the candidate boundary selection method is only evaluated on hedge scope detection here, it can be popularized to other kinds of scope learning tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Huiwei Zhou & Huijie Deng & Degen Huang & Minling Zhu, 2015. "Hedge Scope Detection in Biomedical Texts: An Effective Dependency-Based Method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133715
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133715
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133715&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0133715?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linna He & Zhihao Yang & Zhehuan Zhao & Hongfei Lin & Yanpeng Li, 2013. "Extracting Drug-Drug Interaction from the Biomedical Literature Using a Stacked Generalization-Based Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-12, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ramona Bongelli & Ilaria Riccioni & Roberto Burro & Andrzej Zuczkowski, 2019. "Writers’ uncertainty in scientific and popular biomedical articles. A comparative analysis of the British Medical Journal and Discover Magazine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-26, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Behrouz Bokharaeian & Alberto Diaz & Hamidreza Chitsaz, 2016. "Enhancing Extraction of Drug-Drug Interaction from Literature Using Neutral Candidates, Negation, and Clause Dependency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0133715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.