MOTIVATION: Most currently available text mining tools share two characteristics that make them less than optimal for use by biomedical researchers: they require extensive specialist skills in natural language processing and they were built on the assumption that they should optimize global performance metrics on representative datasets. This is a problem because most end-users are not natural language processing specialists and because biomedical researchers often care less about global metrics like F-measure or representative datasets than they do about more granular metrics such as precision and recall on their own specialized datasets. Thus, there are fundamental mismatches between the assumptions of much text mining work and the preferences of potential end-users. RESULTS: This article introduces the concept of Agile text mining, and presents the PubAnnotation ecosystem as an example implementation. The system approaches the problems from two perspectives: it allows the reformulation of text mining by biomedical researchers from the task of assembling a complete system to the task of retrieving warehoused annotations, and it makes it possible to do very targeted customization of the pre-existing system to address specific end-user requirements. Two use cases are presented: assisted curation of the GlycoEpitope database, and assessing coverage in the literature of pre-eclampsia-associated genes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The three tools that make up the ecosystem, PubAnnotation, PubDictionaries and TextAE are publicly available as web services, and also as open source projects. The dictionaries and the annotation datasets associated with the use cases are all publicly available through PubDictionaries and PubAnnotation, respectively.

BACKGROUND: The Genia task, when it was introduced in 2009, was the first community-wide effort to address a fine-grained, structural information extraction from biomedical literature. Arranged for the second time as one of the main tasks of BioNLP Shared Task 2011, it aimed to measure the progress of the community since 2009, and to evaluate generalization of the technology to full text papers. The Protein Coreference task was arranged as one of the supporting tasks, motivated from one of the lessons of the 2009 task that the abundance of coreference structures in natural language text hinders further improvement with the Genia task. RESULTS: The Genia task received final submissions from 15 teams. The results show that the community has made a significant progress, marking 74% of the best F-score in extracting bio-molecular events of simple structure, e.g., gene expressions, and 45% ~ 48% in extracting those of complex structure, e.g., regulations. The Protein Coreference task received 6 final submissions. The results show that the coreference resolution performance in biomedical domain is lagging behind that in newswire domain, cf. 50% vs. 66% in MUC score. Particularly, in terms of protein coreference resolution the best system achieved 34% in F-score. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed analysis performed on the results improves our insight into the problem and suggests the directions for further improvements.

BACKGROUND: The number of corpora, collections of structured texts, has been increasing, as a result of the growing interest in the application of natural language processing methods to biological texts. Many named entity recognition (NER) systems have been developed based on these corpora. However, in the biomedical community, there is yet no general consensus regarding named entity annotation; thus, the resources are largely incompatible, and it is difficult to compare the performance of systems developed on resources that were divergently annotated. On the other hand, from a practical application perspective, it is desirable to utilize as many existing annotated resources as possible, because annotation is costly. Thus, it becomes a task of interest to integrate the heterogeneous annotations in these resources. RESULTS: We explore the potential sources of incompatibility among gene and protein annotations that were made for three common corpora: GENIA, GENETAG and AIMed. To show the inconsistency in the corpora annotations, we first tackle the incompatibility problem caused by corpus integration, and we quantitatively measure the effect of this incompatibility on protein mention recognition. We find that the F-score performance declines tremendously when training with integrated data, instead of training with pure data; in some cases, the performance drops nearly 12%. This degradation may be caused by the newly added heterogeneous annotations, and cannot be fixed without an understanding of the heterogeneities that exist among the corpora. Motivated by the result of this preliminary experiment, we further qualitatively analyze a number of possible sources for these differences, and investigate the factors that would explain the inconsistencies, by performing a series of well-designed experiments. Our analyses indicate that incompatibilities in the gene/protein annotations exist mainly in the following four areas: the boundary annotation conventions, the scope of the entities of interest, the distribution of annotated entities, and the ratio of overlap between annotated entities. We further suggest that almost all of the incompatibilities can be prevented by properly considering the four aspects aforementioned. CONCLUSION: Our analysis covers the key similarities and dissimilarities that exist among the diverse gene/protein corpora. This paper serves to improve our understanding of the differences in the three studied corpora, which can then lead to a better understanding of the performance of protein recognizers that are based on the corpora.