The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An increase in work on the full text of journal articles and the growth of PubMedCentral have the opportunity to create a major paradigm shift in how biomedical text mining is done. However, until now there has been no comprehensive...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Roeder Christophe, Verspoor Karin, Johnson Helen L, Cohen K Bretonnel, Hunter Lawrence E
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2010-09-01
Series:BMC Bioinformatics
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/492
id doaj-7dc08a19fd7d4411afdcc6630d812b40
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7dc08a19fd7d4411afdcc6630d812b402020-11-25T00:22:45ZengBMCBMC Bioinformatics1471-21052010-09-0111149210.1186/1471-2105-11-492The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are differentRoeder ChristopheVerspoor KarinJohnson Helen LCohen K BretonnelHunter Lawrence E<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An increase in work on the full text of journal articles and the growth of PubMedCentral have the opportunity to create a major paradigm shift in how biomedical text mining is done. However, until now there has been no comprehensive characterization of how the bodies of full text journal articles differ from the abstracts that until now have been the subject of most biomedical text mining research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We examined the structural and linguistic aspects of abstracts and bodies of full text articles, the performance of text mining tools on both, and the distribution of a variety of semantic classes of named entities between them. We found marked structural differences, with longer sentences in the article bodies and much heavier use of parenthesized material in the bodies than in the abstracts. We found content differences with respect to linguistic features. Three out of four of the linguistic features that we examined were statistically significantly differently distributed between the two genres. We also found content differences with respect to the distribution of semantic features. There were significantly different densities per thousand words for three out of four semantic classes, and clear differences in the extent to which they appeared in the two genres. With respect to the performance of text mining tools, we found that a mutation finder performed equally well in both genres, but that a wide variety of gene mention systems performed much worse on article bodies than they did on abstracts. POS tagging was also more accurate in abstracts than in article bodies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Aspects of structure and content differ markedly between article abstracts and article bodies. A number of these differences may pose problems as the text mining field moves more into the area of processing full-text articles. However, these differences also present a number of opportunities for the extraction of data types, particularly that found in parenthesized text, that is present in article bodies but not in article abstracts.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/492
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Roeder Christophe
Verspoor Karin
Johnson Helen L
Cohen K Bretonnel
Hunter Lawrence E
spellingShingle Roeder Christophe
Verspoor Karin
Johnson Helen L
Cohen K Bretonnel
Hunter Lawrence E
The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different
BMC Bioinformatics
author_facet Roeder Christophe
Verspoor Karin
Johnson Helen L
Cohen K Bretonnel
Hunter Lawrence E
author_sort Roeder Christophe
title The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different
title_short The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different
title_full The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different
title_fullStr The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different
title_full_unstemmed The structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different
title_sort structural and content aspects of abstracts versus bodies of full text journal articles are different
publisher BMC
series BMC Bioinformatics
issn 1471-2105
publishDate 2010-09-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An increase in work on the full text of journal articles and the growth of PubMedCentral have the opportunity to create a major paradigm shift in how biomedical text mining is done. However, until now there has been no comprehensive characterization of how the bodies of full text journal articles differ from the abstracts that until now have been the subject of most biomedical text mining research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We examined the structural and linguistic aspects of abstracts and bodies of full text articles, the performance of text mining tools on both, and the distribution of a variety of semantic classes of named entities between them. We found marked structural differences, with longer sentences in the article bodies and much heavier use of parenthesized material in the bodies than in the abstracts. We found content differences with respect to linguistic features. Three out of four of the linguistic features that we examined were statistically significantly differently distributed between the two genres. We also found content differences with respect to the distribution of semantic features. There were significantly different densities per thousand words for three out of four semantic classes, and clear differences in the extent to which they appeared in the two genres. With respect to the performance of text mining tools, we found that a mutation finder performed equally well in both genres, but that a wide variety of gene mention systems performed much worse on article bodies than they did on abstracts. POS tagging was also more accurate in abstracts than in article bodies.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Aspects of structure and content differ markedly between article abstracts and article bodies. A number of these differences may pose problems as the text mining field moves more into the area of processing full-text articles. However, these differences also present a number of opportunities for the extraction of data types, particularly that found in parenthesized text, that is present in article bodies but not in article abstracts.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11/492
work_keys_str_mv AT roederchristophe thestructuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT verspoorkarin thestructuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT johnsonhelenl thestructuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT cohenkbretonnel thestructuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT hunterlawrencee thestructuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT roederchristophe structuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT verspoorkarin structuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT johnsonhelenl structuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT cohenkbretonnel structuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
AT hunterlawrencee structuralandcontentaspectsofabstractsversusbodiesoffulltextjournalarticlesaredifferent
_version_ 1725358373571919872