Knowledge discovery on incompatibility of medical concepts

Authors:
Adam Grycner;Patrick Ernst;Amy Siu;Gerhard Weikum
Affiliations:
Max-Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany;Max-Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany;Max-Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany;Max-Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany
Venue:
CICLing'13 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing - Volume Part I
Year:
2013

Citing 5
Cited 0

Antonymy and conceptual vectors

COLING '02 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 1
Learning Disjointness

ESWC '07 Proceedings of the 4th European conference on The Semantic Web: Research and Applications
Discovering contradicting protein-protein interactions in text

BioNLP '07 Proceedings of the Workshop on BioNLP 2007: Biological, Translational, and Clinical Language Processing
A uniform approach to analogies, synonyms, antonyms, and associations

COLING '08 Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 1
Computing word-pair antonymy

EMNLP '08 Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This work proposes a method for automatically discovering incompatible medical concepts in text corpora. The approach is distantly supervised based on a seed set of incompatible concept pairs like symptoms or conditions that rule each other out. Two concepts are considered incompatible if their definitions match a template, and contain an antonym pair derived from WordNet, VerbOcean, or a hand-crafted lexicon. Our method creates templates from dependency parse trees of definitional texts, using seed pairs. The templates are applied to a text corpus, and the resulting candidate pairs are categorized and ranked by statistical measures. Since experiments show that the results face semantic ambiguity problems, we further cluster the results into different categories. We applied this approach to the concepts in Unified Medical Language System, Human Phenotype Ontology, and Mammalian Phenotype Ontology. Out of 77,496 definitions, 1,958 concept pairs were detected as incompatible with an average precision of 0.80.