Jee-Hyub Kim

Data from open access biomolecular data resources, such as the European Nucleotide Archive and the Protein Data Bank are extensively reused within life science research for comparative studies, method development and to derive new scientific insights. Indicators that estimate the extent and utility of such secondary use of research data need to reflect this complex and highly variable data usage. By linking open access scientific literature, via Europe PubMedCentral, to the metadata in biological data resources we separate data citations associated with a deposition statement from citations that capture the subsequent, long-term, reuse of data in academia and industry. We extend this analysis to begin to investigate citations of biomolecular resources in patent documents. We find citations in more than 8,000 patents from 2014, demonstrating substantial use and an important role for data resources in defining biological concepts in granted patents to both academic and industrial innovators. Combined together our results indicate that the citation patterns in biomedical literature and patents vary, not only due to citation practice but also according to the data resource cited. The results guard against the use of simple metrics such as citation counts and show that indicators of data use must not only take into account citations within the biomedical literature but also include reuse of data in industry and other parts of society by including patents and other scientific and technical documents such as guidelines, reports and grant applications.

In this study, we present an analysis of data citation practices in full text research articles and their corresponding supplementary data files, made available in the Open Access set of articles from Europe PubMed Central. Our aim is to investigate whether supplementary data files should be considered as a source of information for integrating the literature with biomolecular databases.

A cell line is a cell culture developed from a single cell and therefore consisting of cells with a uniform genetic make-up. A cell line has an important role as a research resource such as organisms, antibodies, constructs, knockdown reagents, etc. Unique identification of cell lines in the biomedical literature is important for the reproducibility of science. As data citation, resource citation is also important for resource re-use. In this paper, we mention the challenges of identifying cell lines and describe a system for cell line annotation with perluminary results.

Biomedical entities, their identifiers and names, are essential in the representation of biomedical facts and knowledge. In the same way, the complete set of biomedical and chemical terms, i.e. the biomedical “term space” (the “Lexeome”), forms a key resource to achieve the full integration of the scientific literature with biomedical data resources: any identified named entity can immediately be normalized to the correct database entry. This goal does not only require that we are aware of all existing terms, but would also profit from knowing all their senses and their semantic interpretation (ambiguities, nestedness). This study compiles a resource for lexical terms of biomedical interest in a standard format (called “LexEBI”), determines the overall number of terms, their reuse in different resources and the nestedness of terms. LexEBI comprises references for protein and gene entries and their term variants and chemical entities amongst other terms. In addition, disease terms have been identified from Medline and PubmedCentral and added to LexEBI. Our analysis demonstrates that the baseforms of terms from the different semantic types show only little polysemous use. Nonetheless, the term variants of protein and gene names (PGNs) frequently contain species mentions, which should have been avoided according to protein annotation guidelines. Furthermore, the protein and gene entities as well as the chemical entities, both do comprise enzymes leading to hierarchical polysemy, and a large portion of PGNs make reference to a chemical entity. Altogether, according to our analysis based on the Medline distribution, 401,869 unique PGNs in the documents contain a reference to 25,022 chemical entities, 3,125 disease terms or 1,576 species mentions. LexEBI delivers the complete biomedical and chemical Lexeome in a standardized representation (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Rebholz-srv/LexEBI/). The resource provides the disease terms as open source content, and fully interlinks terms across resources.

Molecular biology and literature databases represent essential infrastructure for life science research. Effective integration of these data resources requires that there are structured cross-references at the level of individual articles and biological records. Here, we describe the current patterns of how database entries are cited in research articles, based on analysis of the full text Open Access articles available from Europe PMC. Focusing on citation of entries in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), UniProt and Protein Data Bank, Europe (PDBe), we demonstrate that text mining doubles the number of structured annotations of database record citations supplied in journal articles by publishers. Many thousands of new literature-database relationships are found by text mining, since these relationships are also not present in the set of articles cited by database records. We recommend that structured annotation of database records in articles is extended to other databases, such as ArrayExpress and Pfam, entries from which are also cited widely in the literature. The very high precision and high-throughput of this text-mining pipeline makes this activity possible both accurately and at low cost, which will allow the development of new integrated data services.

Named entity recognition (NER) is an essential step in automatic text processing pipelines. A number of solutions have been presented and evaluated against gold standard corpora (GSC). The benchmarking against GSCs is crucial, but left to the individual researcher. Herewith we present a League Table web site, which benchmarks NER solutions against selected public GSCs, maintains a ranked list and archives the annotated corpus for future comparisons.

Motivation: The identification of protein and gene names (PGNs) from the scientific literature requires semantic resources: Terminological and lexical resources deliver the term candidates into PGN tagging solutions and the gold standard corpora (GSC) train them to identify term parameters and contextual features. Ideally all three resources, i.e. corpora, lexica and taggers, cover the same domain knowledge, and thus support identification of the same types of PGNs and cover all of them. Unfortunately, none of the three serves as a predominant standard and for this reason it is worth exploring, how these three resources comply with each other. We systematically compare different PGN taggers against publicly available corpora and analyze the impact of the included lexical resource in their performance. In particular, we determine the performance gains through false positive filtering, which contributes to the disambiguation of identified PGNs. Results: In general, machine learning approaches ( ML-Tag ) for PGN tagging show higher F1-measure performance against the BioCreative-II and Jnlpba GSCs (exact matching), whereas the lexicon based approaches ( LexTag ) in combination with disambiguation methods show better results on FsuPrge and PennBio. The ML-Tag solutions balance precision and recall, whereas the LexTag solutions have different precision and recall profiles at the same F1-measure across all corpora. Higher recall is achieved with larger lexical resources, which also introduce more noise (false positive results). The ML-Tag solutions certainly perform best, if the test corpus is from the same GSC as the training corpus. As expected, the false negative errors characterize the test corpora and – on the other hand – the profiles of the false positive mistakes characterize the tagging solutions. Lex-Tag solutions that are based on a large terminological resource in combination with false positive filtering produce better results, which, in addition, provide concept identifiers from a knowledge source in contrast to ML-Tag solutions. Conclusion: The standard ML-Tag solutions achieve high performance, but not across all corpora, and thus should be trained using several different corpora to reduce possible biases. The LexTag solutions have different profiles for their precision and recall performance, but with similar F1-measure. This result is surprising and suggests that they cover a portion of the most common naming standards, but cope differently with the term variability across the corpora. The false positive filtering applied to LexTag solutions does improve the results by increasing their precision without compromising significantly their recall. The harmonisation of the annotation schemes in combination with standardized lexical resources in the tagging solutions will enable their comparability and will pave the way for a shared standard.

We describe our approach for creating a system able to detect emotions in suicide notes. Motivated by the sparse and imbalanced data as well as the complex annotation scheme, we have considered three hybrid approaches for distinguishing between the different categories. Each of the three approaches combines machine learning with manually derived rules, where the latter target very sparse emotion categories. The first approach considers the task as single label multi-class classification, where an SVM and a CRF classifier are trained to recognise fifteen different categories and their results are combined. Our second approach trains individual binary classifiers (SVM and CRF) for each of the fifteen sentence categories and returns the union of the classifiers as the final result. Finally, our third approach is a combination of binary and multi-class classifiers (SVM and CRF) trained on different subsets of the training data. We considered a number of different feature configurations. All three systems were tested on 300 unseen messages. Our second system had the best performance of the three, yielding an F1 score of 45.6% and a Precision of 60.1% whereas our best Recall (43.6%) was obtained using the third system.

UK PubMed Central (UKPMC) is a full-text article database that extends the functionality of the original PubMed Central (PMC) repository. The UKPMC project was launched as the first 'mirror' site to PMC, which in analogy to the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration, aims to provide international preservation of the open and free-access biomedical literature. UKPMC (http://ukpmc.ac.uk) has undergone considerable development since its inception in 2007 and now includes both a UKPMC and PubMed search, as well as access to other records such as Agricola, Patents and recent biomedical theses. UKPMC also differs from PubMed/PMC in that the full text and abstract information can be searched in an integrated manner from one input box. Furthermore, UKPMC contains 'Cited By' information as an alternative way to navigate the literature and has incorporated text-mining approaches to semantically enrich content and integrate it with related database resources. Finally, UKPMC also offers added-value services (UKPMC+) that enable grantees to deposit manuscripts, link papers to grants, publish online portfolios and view citation information on their papers. Here we describe UKPMC and clarify the relationship between PMC and UKPMC, providing historical context and future directions, 10 years on from when PMC was first launched.