2016
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw486
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Drug drug interaction extraction from biomedical literature using syntax convolutional neural network

Abstract: Motivation: Detecting drug-drug interaction (DDI) has become a vital part of public health safety. Therefore, using text mining techniques to extract DDIs from biomedical literature has received great attentions. However, this research is still at an early stage and its performance has much room to improve.Results: In this article, we present a syntax convolutional neural network (SCNN) based DDI extraction method. In this method, a novel word embedding, syntax word embedding, is proposed to employ the syntact… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
140
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 200 publications
(151 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
140
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is notable that CNN was also utilized by Zhao et al [32] recently; they combined traditional CNN and external features such as contexts, shortest path, and part-of-speech to classify the interaction type and achieved an overall f -scores 68.6 which was similar to our results. The differences between [32] and our model lie on two aspects: (1) feature engineering still plays an important part in [32] model, whereas our model demands no manually feature sets; (2) multichannel word embeddings in our model contain richer semantic information which has been proved to be much useful in fine-grained interaction classification task.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…It is notable that CNN was also utilized by Zhao et al [32] recently; they combined traditional CNN and external features such as contexts, shortest path, and part-of-speech to classify the interaction type and achieved an overall f -scores 68.6 which was similar to our results. The differences between [32] and our model lie on two aspects: (1) feature engineering still plays an important part in [32] model, whereas our model demands no manually feature sets; (2) multichannel word embeddings in our model contain richer semantic information which has been proved to be much useful in fine-grained interaction classification task.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…We mainly compare Methods P (%) R (%) F (%) No negative instance filtering CNN 75.29 60.37 67.01 MCCNN (Quan et al, 2016) --67.80 SCNN (Zhao et al, 2016) 68 (2015) --67.0 CNN 75.72 64.66 69.75 MCCNN (Quan et al, 2016) 75.99 65.25 70.21 SCNN (Zhao et al, 2016) 72.5 65.1 68.6 Joint AB-LSTM (Sahu and Anand, 2017) 73.41 69.66 71.48 Table 6: Comparison with existing models Comparison of attention mechanisms on CNN models with ranking objective function the performance without negative instance filtering, which omits some apparent negative instance pairs with rules (Chowdhury and Lavelli, 2013), since we did not incorporate it. We also show the performance of the existing models with negative instance filtering for reference.…”
Section: Comparison With Existing Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…built a CNN-based model on word embedding and word position embeddings. Zhao et al (2016) proposed Syntax CNN (SCNN) that employs syntax word embeddings with the syntactic information of a sentence as well as features of POS tags and dependency trees. tackled DDI extraction using Multi-Channel CNN (MCCNN) that enables the fusion of multiple word embeddings.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Finally, this vector is used in a classification layer to assign a class label. Recently, CNN has succeeded providing the state-of-art results in some tasks of relation extraction such as the relationships between nominals (Zeng et al, 2014) or the extraction of drugdrug interactions (Zhao et al, 2016). Our aim is to explore if CNN is also a suitable method for extracting relationships between keyphrases.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%