2024MAY10: Our hosting provider is experiencing intermittent networking issues. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Searching across hundreds of databases

Our searching services are busy right now. Your search will reload in five seconds.

X
Forgot Password

If you have forgotten your password you can enter your email here and get a temporary password sent to your email.

X
Forgot Password

If you have forgotten your password you can enter your email here and get a temporary password sent to your email.

BioCreative V CDR task corpus: a resource for chemical disease relation extraction.

Database : the journal of biological databases and curation | 2016

Community-run, formal evaluations and manually annotated text corpora are critically important for advancing biomedical text-mining research. Recently in BioCreative V, a new challenge was organized for the tasks of disease named entity recognition (DNER) and chemical-induced disease (CID) relation extraction. Given the nature of both tasks, a test collection is required to contain both disease/chemical annotations and relation annotations in the same set of articles. Despite previous efforts in biomedical corpus construction, none was found to be sufficient for the task. Thus, we developed our own corpus called BC5CDR during the challenge by inviting a team of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexers for disease/chemical entity annotation and Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD) curators for CID relation annotation. To ensure high annotation quality and productivity, detailed annotation guidelines and automatic annotation tools were provided. The resulting BC5CDR corpus consists of 1500 PubMed articles with 4409 annotated chemicals, 5818 diseases and 3116 chemical-disease interactions. Each entity annotation includes both the mention text spans and normalized concept identifiers, using MeSH as the controlled vocabulary. To ensure accuracy, the entities were first captured independently by two annotators followed by a consensus annotation: The average inter-annotator agreement (IAA) scores were 87.49% and 96.05% for the disease and chemicals, respectively, in the test set according to the Jaccard similarity coefficient. Our corpus was successfully used for the BioCreative V challenge tasks and should serve as a valuable resource for the text-mining research community.Database URL: http://www.biocreative.org/tasks/biocreative-v/track-3-cdr/.

Pubmed ID: 27161011 RIS Download

Research resources used in this publication

None found

Antibodies used in this publication

None found

Associated grants

  • Agency: NIEHS NIH HHS, United States
    Id: R01 ES014065
  • Agency: NIEHS NIH HHS, United States
    Id: R01 ES019604
  • Agency: NIEHS NIH HHS, United States
    Id: ES014065
  • Agency: NIEHS NIH HHS, United States
    Id: ES019604

Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.

This is a list of tools and resources that we have found mentioned in this publication.


Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD) (tool)

RRID:SCR_006530

A public database that enhances understanding of the effects of environmental chemicals on human health. Integrated GO data and a GO browser add functionality to CTD by allowing users to understand biological functions, processes and cellular locations that are the targets of chemical exposures. CTD includes curated data describing cross-species chemical–gene/protein interactions, chemical–disease and gene–disease associations to illuminate molecular mechanisms underlying variable susceptibility and environmentally influenced diseases. These data will also provide insights into complex chemical–gene and protein interaction networks.

View all literature mentions

BioCreative (tool)

RRID:SCR_006311

Community-wide effort (Challenge) for evaluating text mining and information extraction systems applied to the biological domain. It is focused on the comparison of methods and the community assessment of scientific progress, rather than on the purely competitive aspects. There is a considerable difficulty in constructing suitable gold standard data for training and testing new information extraction systems which handle life science literature. Thus the data sets derived from the BioCreAtIvE challenge - because they have been examined by biological database curators and domain experts - serve as useful resources for the development of new applications as well as helping to improve existing ones. Two main issues are addressed at BioCreAtIvE, both concerned with the extraction of biologically relevant and useful information from the literature. The first one is concerned with the detection of biologically significant entities (names) such as gene and protein names and their association to existing database entries. The second one is concerned with the detection of entity-fact associations (e.g. protein - functional term associations ).

View all literature mentions

MeSH (tool)

RRID:SCR_004750

A controlled vocabulary thesaurus that consists of sets of terms naming descriptors in a hierarchical structure that permits searching at various levels of specificity. MeSH, in machine-readable form, is provided at no charge via electronic means. MeSH descriptors are arranged in both an alphabetic and a hierarchical structure. At the most general level of the hierarchical structure are very broad headings such as Anatomy or Mental Disorders. More specific headings are found at more narrow levels of the twelve-level hierarchy, such as Ankle and Conduct Disorder. There are 27,149 descriptors in 2014 MeSH. There are also over 218,000 entry terms that assist in finding the most appropriate MeSH Heading, for example, Vitamin C is an entry term to Ascorbic Acid. In addition to these headings, there are more than 219,000 headings called Supplementary Concept Records (formerly Supplementary Chemical Records) within a separate thesaurus. The MeSH thesaurus is used by NLM for indexing articles from 5,400 of the world''''s leading biomedical journals for the MEDLINE/PubMED database. It is also used for the NLM-produced database that includes cataloging of books, documents, and audiovisuals acquired by the Library. Each bibliographic reference is associated with a set of MeSH terms that describe the content of the item. Similarly, search queries use MeSH vocabulary to find items on a desired topic.

View all literature mentions

Wikipedia (tool)

RRID:SCR_004897

Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its 19 million articles (over 3.6 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site. As of July 2011, there were editions of Wikipedia in 282 languages. Wikipedia was launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger and has become the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet, ranking around seventh among all websites on Alexa and having 365 million readers. The name Wikipedia was coined by Larry Sanger and is a combination of wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning quick) and encyclopedia. Wikipedia''s departure from the expert-driven style of encyclopedia building and the large presence of unacademic content has been noted several times. Some have noted the importance of Wikipedia not only as an encyclopedic reference but also as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear. Although the policies of Wikipedia strongly espouse verifiability and a neutral point of view, critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture), and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial processes. Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted. A 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopedia Britannica and had a similar rate of serious errors.

View all literature mentions