Upload
weldon
View
31
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Developing a Semantic Search Application A Pharma Case Study. Tom Reamy Chief Knowledge Architect KAPS Group http://www.kapsgroup.com Program Chair – Text Analytics World Taxonomy Boot Camp: Washington DC, 2013. KAPS Group: General. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Developing a Semantic Search Application
A Pharma Case StudyTom Reamy
Chief Knowledge ArchitectKAPS Group
http://www.kapsgroup.comProgram Chair – Text Analytics World
Taxonomy Boot Camp: Washington DC, 2013
2
KAPS Group: General Knowledge Architecture Professional Services – Network of Consultants Partners – SAS, SAP, IBM, FAST, Smart Logic, Concept Searching
– Attensity, Clarabridge, Lexalytics, Strategy – IM & KM - Text Analytics, Social Media, Integration Services:
– Taxonomy/Text Analytics development, consulting, customization– Text Analytics Fast Start – Audit, Evaluation, Pilot– Social Media: Text based applications – design & development
Clients: – Genentech, Novartis, Northwestern Mutual Life, Financial Times,
Hyatt, Home Depot, Harvard Business Library, British Parliament, Battelle, Amdocs, FDA, GAO, etc.
Applied Theory – Faceted taxonomies, complexity theory, natural categories, emotion taxonomies
Presentations, Articles, White Papers – http://www.kapsgroup.com
3
Project Agile Methodology Goal – evaluate semantic technologies ability to:
– Replace manual annotation of scientific documents – automated or semi-automated
– Discover new entities and relationships – Provide users with self-service capabilities
Goal – feasibility and effort level
4
Components – Technology, Resources Cambridge Semantics, Linguamatics, SAS Enterprise Content
Categorization– Initial integration – passing results as XML
Content – scientific journal articles Taxonomy – Mesh – select small subset Access to a “customer” – critical for success
5
Three rounds - Iterations Visualization – faceted search, sort by date, author, journal
– Cambridge Semantics Round 1 – PDF from their database
– Needed to create additional structure and metadata– No such thing as unstructured content
Round 2 & 3 – XML with full metadata from PubMed Entity Recognition – Species, Document Type, Study Type, Drug
Names, Disease Names, Adverse Events
6
Components & Approach Rules or sample documents?
– Need more precision and granularity than documents can do– Training sets – not as easy as thought
First Rules – text indicators to define sections of the document – Objectives, Abstract, Purpose, Aim – all the “same” section
Separate logic of the rules from the text – Stable rules, changing text
Scores – relevancy with thresholds– Not just frequency of words
7
Document Type Rules
8
Document Type Rules
(START_2000, (AND, (OR, _/article:"[Abstract]", _/article:"[Methods]“, _/article:"[Objective]",
_/article:"[Results]", _/article:"[Discussion]“, (OR, _/article:"clinical trial*", _/article:"humans", (NOT, (DIST_5, (OR,_/article:"approved", _/article:"safe",
_/article:"use", _/article:"animals"), Clinical Trial Rule: If the article has sections like Abstract or Methods AND has phrases around “clinical trials / Humans” and not words
like “animals” within 5 words of “clinical trial” words – count it and add up a relevancy score
9
Rules for Drug Names and Diseases
Primary issue – major mentions, not every mention– Combination of noun phrase extraction and categorization– Results – virtually 100%
Taxonomy of drug names and diseases Capture general diseases like thrombosis and specific types like
deep vein, cerebral, and cardiac Combine text about arthritis and synonyms with text like “Journal
of Rheumatology”
10
11
Rules for Drug Names and Diseases
(OR, _/article/title:"[clonidine]", (AND, _/article/mesh:"[clonidine]",_/article/abstract:"[clonidine]"), (MINOC_2, _/article/abstract:"[clonidine]") (START_500, (MINOC_2,"[clonidine]")))
Means – any variation of drug name in title – high score Any variation in Mesh Keywords AND in abstract – high score Any variation in Abstract at least 2x – good score Any variation in first 500 words at least 2x – suspect
12
Rules for Drug Names and Diseases
Results: – Wide Range by type -- 70-100% recall and precision
Focus mostly on precision – difficult to test recall One deep dive area indicated that 90%+ scores for both precision
and recall could be built with moderate level of effort Not linear effort – 30% accuracy does not mean 1/3 done
13
Iteration 3
Complete treatment of disease state:– Indication (disease you want to treat)– Concomitant disease– Adverse or side effects
Use XML metadata – some variant of “adverse” Any combination of words associated with a disease (depression)
and any of the words that indicated an adverse event or effect
Conclusion
Project was a success! Useful results – as defined by the customer Reasonable and doable effort level – both for initial development
and maintenance Essential Success Factors
– Rules not documents, training sets (starting point)– Full platform for disambiguation of noun phrase extraction,
major-minor mention– Separation of logic and text
Semantic Search works!– If you do it smart!
14
Questions? Tom Reamy
[email protected] Group
Knowledge Architecture Professional Serviceshttp://www.kapsgroup.com
www.TextAnalyticsWorld.com March 17-19, San Francisco