Linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the BioScope and Genia Event corpora

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The treatment of negation and hedging in natural language processing has received much interest recently, especially in the biomedical domain. However, open access corpora annotated for negation and/or speculation are hardly availabl...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vincze Veronika, Szarvas György, Móra György, Ohta Tomoko, Farkas Richárd
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-10-01
Series:Journal of Biomedical Semantics
Online Access:http://www.jbiomedsem.com/content/2/S5/S8
id doaj-6ffab965685946afa2753ddafd389481
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6ffab965685946afa2753ddafd3894812020-11-24T22:19:34ZengBMCJournal of Biomedical Semantics2041-14802011-10-012Suppl 5S810.1186/2041-1480-2-S5-S8Linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the BioScope and Genia Event corporaVincze VeronikaSzarvas GyörgyMóra GyörgyOhta TomokoFarkas Richárd<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The treatment of negation and hedging in natural language processing has received much interest recently, especially in the biomedical domain. However, open access corpora annotated for negation and/or speculation are hardly available for training and testing applications, and even if they are, they sometimes follow different design principles. In this paper, the annotation principles of the two largest corpora containing annotation for negation and speculation – BioScope and Genia Event – are compared. BioScope marks linguistic cues and their scopes for negation and hedging while in Genia biological events are marked for uncertainty and/or negation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Differences among the annotations of the two corpora are thematically categorized and the frequency of each category is estimated. We found that the largest amount of differences is due to the issue that scopes – which cover text spans – deal with the key events and each argument (including events within events) of these events is under the scope as well. In contrast, Genia deals with the modality of events within events independently.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The analysis of multiple layers of annotation (linguistic scopes and biological events) showed that the detection of negation/hedge keywords and their scopes can contribute to determining the modality of key events (denoted by the main predicate). On the other hand, for the detection of the negation and speculation status of events within events, additional syntax-based rules investigating the dependency path between the modality cue and the event cue have to be employed.</p> http://www.jbiomedsem.com/content/2/S5/S8
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Vincze Veronika
Szarvas György
Móra György
Ohta Tomoko
Farkas Richárd
spellingShingle Vincze Veronika
Szarvas György
Móra György
Ohta Tomoko
Farkas Richárd
Linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the BioScope and Genia Event corpora
Journal of Biomedical Semantics
author_facet Vincze Veronika
Szarvas György
Móra György
Ohta Tomoko
Farkas Richárd
author_sort Vincze Veronika
title Linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the BioScope and Genia Event corpora
title_short Linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the BioScope and Genia Event corpora
title_full Linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the BioScope and Genia Event corpora
title_fullStr Linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the BioScope and Genia Event corpora
title_full_unstemmed Linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the BioScope and Genia Event corpora
title_sort linguistic scope-based and biological event-based speculation and negation annotations in the bioscope and genia event corpora
publisher BMC
series Journal of Biomedical Semantics
issn 2041-1480
publishDate 2011-10-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The treatment of negation and hedging in natural language processing has received much interest recently, especially in the biomedical domain. However, open access corpora annotated for negation and/or speculation are hardly available for training and testing applications, and even if they are, they sometimes follow different design principles. In this paper, the annotation principles of the two largest corpora containing annotation for negation and speculation – BioScope and Genia Event – are compared. BioScope marks linguistic cues and their scopes for negation and hedging while in Genia biological events are marked for uncertainty and/or negation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Differences among the annotations of the two corpora are thematically categorized and the frequency of each category is estimated. We found that the largest amount of differences is due to the issue that scopes – which cover text spans – deal with the key events and each argument (including events within events) of these events is under the scope as well. In contrast, Genia deals with the modality of events within events independently.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The analysis of multiple layers of annotation (linguistic scopes and biological events) showed that the detection of negation/hedge keywords and their scopes can contribute to determining the modality of key events (denoted by the main predicate). On the other hand, for the detection of the negation and speculation status of events within events, additional syntax-based rules investigating the dependency path between the modality cue and the event cue have to be employed.</p>
url http://www.jbiomedsem.com/content/2/S5/S8
work_keys_str_mv AT vinczeveronika linguisticscopebasedandbiologicaleventbasedspeculationandnegationannotationsinthebioscopeandgeniaeventcorpora
AT szarvasgyorgy linguisticscopebasedandbiologicaleventbasedspeculationandnegationannotationsinthebioscopeandgeniaeventcorpora
AT moragyorgy linguisticscopebasedandbiologicaleventbasedspeculationandnegationannotationsinthebioscopeandgeniaeventcorpora
AT ohtatomoko linguisticscopebasedandbiologicaleventbasedspeculationandnegationannotationsinthebioscopeandgeniaeventcorpora
AT farkasrichard linguisticscopebasedandbiologicaleventbasedspeculationandnegationannotationsinthebioscopeandgeniaeventcorpora
_version_ 1725778413812187136