a comparison and user-based evaluation of models of textual information structure in the context of cancer risk assessment文本信息的比较和基于用户的评价模型结构的上下文中癌症风险评估.pdfVIP

Guo et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:69 /1471-2105/12/69 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access A comparison and user-based evaluation of models of textual information structure in the context of cancer risk assessment 1 1* 3 2 2 2 Yufan Guo , Anna Korhonen , Maria Liakata , Ilona Silins , Johan Hogberg , Ulla Stenius Abstract Background: Many practical tasks in biomedicine require accessing specific types of information in scientific literature; e.g. information about the results or conclusions of the study in question. Several schemes have been developed to characterize such information in scientific journal articles. For example, a simple section-based scheme assigns individual sentences in abstracts under sections such as Objective, Methods, Results and Conclusions. Some schemes of textual information structure have proved useful for biomedical text mining (BIO- TM) tasks (e.g. automatic summarization). However, user-centered evaluation in the context of real-life tasks has been lacking. Methods: We take three schemes of different type and granularity - those based on section names, Argumentative Zones (AZ) and Core Scientific Concepts (CoreSC) - and evaluate their usefulness for a real-life task which focuses on biomedical abstracts: Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA). We annotate a corpus of CRA abstracts according to each scheme, develop classifiers for automatic identification of the schemes in abstracts, and evaluate both the manual and automatic classifications directly as well as in the context of CRA. Results: Our results show that for each scheme, the majority of categories appear in abstracts, although two of the schemes (AZ and CoreSC) were developed originally for full journal articles. All the schemes can