Information Extraction for Biomedical Literature Using Artificial Intelligence: A Comparative Study
Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, ISSN: 2367-3389, Vol: 904 LNNS, Page: 56-69
2024
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Conference Paper Description
Growing biomedical literature necessitates efficient and effective knowledge extraction methodologies. Automated information extraction (IE) techniques offer promising solutions. This article presents a comprehensive comparative study that evaluates the latest research publications focusing on extracting information such as drug interactions and diseases from Biomedical Literature. The study analyses the selected studies, compares their findings, and discusses IE techniques’ attributes. This investigation examines a comprehensive range of IE methods, including deep learning, machine learning, rule-based methods, and hybrid approaches. The performance of specific methods is evaluated using discerning metrics such as F1-score, precision, recall, and accuracy. Evidence suggests that deep learning methods achieved significant improvements in accuracy, while hybrid approaches demonstrated flexibility and robustness. Also, domainspecific models and pre-trained language models are emphasized to enhance contextual understanding. Despite progress, challenges persist, including the handling of complex sentences, data availability, and generalization. In the context of the rapidly evolving biomedical field, IE methods play an increasingly critical role in the development of medical knowledge and patient care. This study highlights the critical need for continued research to develop and refine IE techniques for their broader application.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85192949206&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52388-5_6; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-52388-5_6; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52388-5_6; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-52388-5_6
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know