Detection of fields of applications in biomedical abstracts with the support of argumentation elements
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Focusing on particular facts, instead of the complete text, can potentially improve searching for specific information in the scientific literature. In particular, argumentative elements allow focusing on specific parts of a publication, e.g., the background section or the claims from the authors. We evaluated some tools for the extraction of argumentation elements for a specific task in biomedicine, namely, for detecting the fields of the application in a biomedical publication, e.g, whether it addresses the problem of disease diagnosis or drug development. We performed experiments with the PubMedBERT pre-trained model, which was fine-tuned on a specific corpus for the task. We compared the use of title and abstract to restricting to only some argumentative elements. The top F1 scores ranged from 0.22 to 0.84, depending on the field of application. The best argumentative labels were the ones related the conclusion and background sections of an abstract.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2024.
Builds on
4 of 30 references.
References · 4
- 2020Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processingcited by 996
- 2022BioRED: A Rich Biomedical Relation Extraction Datasetcited by 84
- 2019Fine-Grained Argument Unit Recognition and Classificationcited by 26
- 2018Hierarchical Neural Networks for Sequential Sentence Classification in Medical Scientific Abstractscited by 22
Built on by
Not cited yet.