4.6 Article

Better synonyms for enriching biomedical search

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa151

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: In a biomedical literature search, the link between a query and a document is often not established, because they use different terms to refer to the same concept. Distributional word embeddings are frequently used for detecting related words by computing the cosine similarity between them. However, previous research has not established either the best embedding methods for detecting synonyms among related word pairs or how effective such methods may be. Materials and Methods: In this study, we first create the BioSearchSyn set, a manually annotated set of synonyms, to assess and compare 3 widely used word-embedding methods (word2vec, fastText, and GloVe) in their ability to detect synonyms among related pairs of words. We demonstrate the shortcomings of the cosine similarity score between word embeddings for this task: the same scores have very different meanings for the different methods. To address the problem, we propose utilizing pool adjacent violators (PAV), an isotonic regression algorithm, to transform a cosine similarity into a probability of 2 words being synonyms. Results: Experimental results using the BioSearchSyn set as a gold standard reveal which embedding methods have the best performance in identifying synonym pairs. The BioSearchSyn set also allows converting cosine similarity scores into probabilities, which provides a uniform interpretation of the synonymy score over different methods. Conclusions: We introduced the BioSearchSyn corpus of 1000 term pairs, which allowed us to identify the best embedding method for detecting synonymy for biomedical search. Using the proposed method, we created PubTermVariants2.0: a large, automatically extracted set of synonym pairs that have augmented PubMed searches since the spring of 2019.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据