Paper detail

Learning the grammar of drug prescription: recurrent neural network grammars for medication information extraction in clinical texts

In this study, we evaluated the RNNG, a neural top-down transition based parser, for medication information extraction in clinical texts. We evaluated this model on a French clinical corpus. The task was to extract the name of a drug (or a drug class), as well as attributes informing its administration: frequency, dosage, duration, condition and route of administration. We compared the RNNG model that jointly identifies entities, events and their relations with separate BiLSTMs models for entities, events and relations as baselines. We call seq-BiLSTMs the baseline models for relations extraction that takes as extra-input the output of the BiLSTMs for entities and events. Similarly, we evaluated seq-RNNG, a hybrid RNNG model that takes as extra-input the output of the BiLSTMs for entities and events. RNNG outperforms seq-BiLSTM for identifying complex relations, with on average 88.1 [84.4-91.6] % versus 69.9 [64.0-75.4] F-measure. However, RNNG tends to be weaker than the baseline BiLSTM on detecting entities, with on average 82.4 [80.8-83.8] versus 84.1 [82.7-85.6] % F- measure. RNNG trained only for detecting relations tends to be weaker than RNNG with the joint modelling objective, 87.4% [85.8-88.8] versus 88.5% [87.2-89.8]. Seq-RNNG is on par with BiLSTM for entities (84.0 [82.6-85.4] % F-measure) and with RNNG for relations (88.7 [87.4-90.0] % F-measure). The performance of RNNG on relations can be explained both by the model architecture, which provides inductive bias to capture the hierarchy in the targets, and the joint modeling objective which allows the RNNG to learn richer representations. RNNG is efficient for modeling relations between entities or/and events in medical texts and its performances are close to those of a BiLSTM for entity and event detection.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.