Abstract: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.

Supplementary Results of a Comparative Syntactic and Semantic Study of Terms for Software Testing Glossaries

Comparative analysis of the syntactic and semantic consistency of terms in software testing glossaries

Exploratory Study on the Syntactic and Semantic Consistency of Terms in Project Management Glossaries to provide Recommendations for a Project Management Ontology

Towards a Common Testing Terminology for Software Engineering and Data Science Experts

Matching of Descriptive Labels to Glossary Descriptions

An Investigation of Software Development Process Terminology

Inferring Semantically Related Software Terms and Their Taxonomy by Leveraging Collaborative Tagging

Introduction to Special Section on Search Based Software Engineering

Evaluating Terminology Translation in Machine Translation Systems Via Metamorphic Testing

Evaluating Gold Standard Corpora Against Gene/protein Tagging Solutions and Lexical Resources

Terminology Tools: State of the Art and Practical Lessons

Mining the Web for Synonyms: PMI-IR versus LSA on TOEFL

What we mean when we say semantic: Toward a multidisciplinary semantic glossary

Investigating Text Simplification Evaluation

Harbsafe-162. A Domain-Specific Data Set for the Intrinsic Evaluation of Semantic Representations for Terminological Data

Tools for Terminology Processing

Building an Experimental German User Interface Terminology Linked to SNOMED CT

Importance of standard terminology in surface chemical analysis: ISO 18115‐1:2023, general terms and terms used in spectroscopy

Searching publications on software testing

Assessing test artifact quality -- A tertiary study