title: The biomedical discourse relation bank.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Identification of discourse relations, such as causal and contrastive relations, between situations mentioned in text is an important task for biomedical text-mining. A biomedical text corpus annotated with discourse relations would be very useful for developing and evaluating methods for biomedical discourse processing. However, little effort has been made to develop such an annotated resource.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We have developed the Biomedical Discourse Relation Bank (BioDRB), in which we have annotated explicit and implicit discourse relations in 24 open-access full-text biomedical articles from the GENIA corpus. Guidelines for the annotation were adapted from the Penn Discourse TreeBank (PDTB), which has discourse relations annotated over open-domain news articles. We introduced new conventions and modifications to the sense classification. We report reliable inter-annotator agreement of over 80% for all sub-tasks. Experiments for identifying the sense of explicit discourse connectives show the connective itself as a highly reliable indicator for coarse sense classification (accuracy 90.9% and F1 score 0.89). These results are comparable to results obtained with the same classifier on the PDTB data. With more refined sense classification, there is degradation in performance (accuracy 69.2% and F1 score 0.28), mainly due to sparsity in the data. The size of the corpus was found to be sufficient for identifying the sense of explicit connectives, with classifier performance stabilizing at about 1900 training instances. Finally, the classifier performs poorly when trained on PDTB and tested on BioDRB (accuracy 54.5% and F1 score 0.57).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our work shows that discourse relations can be reliably annotated in biomedical text. Coarse sense disambiguation of explicit connectives can be done with high reliability by using just the connective as a feature, but more refined sense classification requires either richer features or more annotated data. The poor performance of a classifier trained in the open domain and tested in the biomedical domain suggests significant differences in the semantic usage of connectives across these domains, and provides robust evidence for a biomedical sublanguage for discourse and the need to develop a specialized biomedical discourse annotated corpus. The results of our cross-domain experiments are consistent with related work on identifying connectives in BioDRB.
authors: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
authors: Rashmi
authors: R
authors: Prasad
authors: Susan
authors: S
authors: McRoy
authors: Nadya
authors: N
authors: Frid
authors: Aravind
authors: A
authors: Joshi
authors: Hong
authors: H
authors: Yu
references: AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2010 Nov 13;2010:11-5
references: 21346931
references: Pac Symp Biocomput. 1998;:707-18
references: 9697224
references: Pac Symp Biocomput. 2002;:362-73
references: 11928490
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 May 23;12:188
references: 21605399
references: J Biomed Inform. 2007 Jun;40(3):236-51
references: 17462961
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jan 19;96(2):529-34
references: 9892667
references: Bioinformatics. 2006 Jul 15;22(14):e547-56
references: 16873519
references: AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009 Nov 14;2009:6-10
references: 20351812
references: J Biomed Inform. 2002 Aug;35(4):222-35
references: 12755517
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2009 Jun 15;10:183
references: 19527520
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Dec 7;101(49):17050-5
references: 15563588
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Jul 25;7:356
references: 16867190
references: Bioinformatics. 2006 Mar 1;22(5):597-605
references: 16368768
references: J Biomed Inform. 2010 Dec;43(6):962-71
references: 20670693
references: PLoS One. 2010 Oct 07;5(10):e12983
references: 20949102
references: Bioinformatics. 2009 Dec 1;25(23):3174-80
references: 19783830
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Nov-Dec;17(6):696-701
references: 20962133
references: Pac Symp Biocomput. 2002;:386-97
references: 11928492
references: AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2010 Nov 13;2010:657-61
references: 21347060
references: Bioinformatics. 2001;17 Suppl 1:S74-82
references: 11472995
references: Bioinformatics. 2006 Jul 15;22(14):e446-53
references: 16873506
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Sep-Oct;17(5):563-7
references: 20819865
references: J Comput Biol. 2003;10(6):821-55
references: 14980013
references: BMC Bioinformatics. 2005;6 Suppl 1:S6
references: 15960840
references: J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Jul;92(3):364-7
references: 15243643
references: Nat Rev Genet. 2006 Feb;7(2):119-29
references: 16418747
references: J Biomed Discov Collab. 2009 Jan 06;4:1
references: 19126221
references: Bioinformatics. 2008 Sep 15;24(18):2086-93
references: 18718948
references: Bioinformatics. 2004 Aug 4;20 Suppl 1:i290-6
references: 15262811
references: IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2010 Jul-Sep;7(3):454-61
references: 20671317
references: Brief Bioinform. 2007 Sep;8(5):358-75
references: 17977867
references: Pac Symp Biocomput. 2006;:40-51
references: 17094226
references: Bioinformatics. 2007 Jul 1;23(13):i66-71
references: 17646347
references: Genome Biol. 2005;6(7):224
references: 15998455
references: J Biomed Inform. 2010 Dec;43(6):953-61
references: 20709188
references: Bioinformatics. 2003;19 Suppl 1:i180-2
references: 12855455