1. Automatic Prediction of Evidence-based
Recommendations via Sentence-level Polarity
Classification
Abeed Sarker1,2
Diego Moll´1,2
a
C´cile Paris1,2
e
Macquarie University1 and CSIRO ICT Centre2
Sydney, Australia
IJCNLP 2013, Nagoya, Japan

2. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Contents
Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
2/24

3. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Evidence Based Medicine
http://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/evidence-based-medicine-the-facebook-of-medicine/
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
3/24

4. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
The Ultimate Goal
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
4/24

5. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Sentence Polarity for EBM
The Task
Given a context intervention, determine the polarity of a
sentence returned by an automatic summariser.
Q
IR
polarity
summarisers detectors
s11
+
doc1
+
s12
+
s21
doc2
−
−
s22
+
s31
doc3
s32
drug1, +
multisummariser
EBM Sentence Polarity
drug2, +
drug3, −
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
5/24

6. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Sentence Polarity in Context
Different contexts may determine different polarities
Sentence fragment
The present study demonstrated that the combination of
cimetidine with levamisole is more effective than cimetidine alone
and is a highly effective therapy ...
Polarities in Context
cimetidine with levamisole: recommended.
cimetidine alone: not recommended.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
6/24

7. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Related Work
Related tasks
Sentiment analysis
Semantic orientation
Opinion mining
Subjectivity
Typical approaches use
statistical classifiers (e.g.
SVM) trained on bag-of-word
features.
Closely Related
Niu et al. (2005,2006) Polarity classification of medical sentences
into four categories (positive, negative, neutral, no
outcome).
Our approach contemplates the possibility of the same sentence
having multiple polarities.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
7/24

8. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Contents
Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
8/24

9. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Data and Annotation
Initial corpus
456 clinical questions sourced
from the Journal of Family
Practice.
Polarity annotations
589 sentences from 33
questions annotated.
Bottom-line answers.
Key sentences extracted
by QSpec summariser.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
9/24

10. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Example of annotations
Question
What is the most effective beta-blocker for heart failure?
Bottom-line answer
Three beta-blockers- carvedilol, metoprolol, and bisoprolol-reduce
mortality in chronic heart failure caused by left ventricular systolic
dysfunction, when used in addition to diuretics and angiotensin
converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors.
Contextual polarities
carvedilol — recommended; metoprolol — recommended;
bisoprolol — recommended.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
10/24

11. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Analysis I
Inter-annotator agreement (124 sentences)
Cohen Kappa: k = 0.85 (almost perfect agreement).
Agreement between annotated sentences and bottom-line
summaries
Interventions with positive polarity that are mentioned in the
bottom-line summary: 177.
Polarity agreement: 95.5%.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
11/24

12. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Analysis II
But do we have enough interventions?
Out of 109 unique interventions listed in the bottom-line
summaries . . .
. . . 99 are listed in the annotated sentences.
Recall= 90.8%
If we ignore missing abstracts: Recall = 96.1%
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
12/24

13. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Contents
Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
13/24

14. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Approach
Train a statistical classifier (SVM).
Input: context, sentence (may have sentence duplicates, each
with a different context).
Output: the polarity.
Features
1. Word n-grams
2. Change Phrases
3. UMLS Semantic Types
4. Negations
5. PIBOSO Category
6. Synset Expansion
7. Context Windows
8. Dependency Chains
9. Other Features
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
14/24

15. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Description of Features I
1 Word n-grams
n = 1, 2
Lowercased, stop words removed, stemmed (Porter).
Context words (strings matching the provided contexts)
replaced with generic string ’ CONTEXT ’.
Disorder terms (UMLS semantic types) replaced with generic
string ’ DISORDER ’.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
15/24

16. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Description of Features II
2 Change Phrases
Expanded Niu et al. (2005) groups of good, bad, more, less
words.
Features used: more-good, more-bad, less-good, less-bad.
Context window of 4 words.
3 UMLS semantic types
Used all UMLS semantic types as binary features.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
16/24

17. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Description of Features III
4 Negations
Niu et al. 2005.
BioScope corpus.
NegEx.
5 PIBOSO categories
Population, Intervention, Background, Outcome, Study
design, Other.
Used Kim et al. (2011) classifier.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
17/24

18. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Description of Features IV
6 Synset Expansion
Use WordNet to expand synonyms.
7 Context Windows
Terms within 3-word boundaries around context-drug terms.
Terms before are appended ’BEFORE’ string.
Terms after are appended ’AFTER’ string.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
18/24

19. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Description of Features V
8 Dependency chains
Used GDep parser.
For each intervention, follow dependencies using this rule:
1. Move up the dependency chain until we find a verb or the root.
2. Move down the dependencies and collect all terms.
Terms collected are appended ’DEP’ string.
9 Other features
Context-intervention position.
Summary sentence position.
Presence of modals, comparatives, superlatives.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
19/24

20. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Contents
Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
20/24

21. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Results with SVM Classifier
Training: 85% of annotated data (2008 sentences).
Test: 15% of annotated data (354 sentences).
Feature sets
1,2,3,4 (Niu)
1–6
All (Niu)
All (Bioscope)
All (NegEx)
Accuracy
Value (%)
95% CI
76.0
78.5
83.9
84.7
84.5
71.2–80.4
73.8–82.8
79.7–87.6
80.5–88.9
80.2–88.1
EBM Sentence Polarity
Positive
0.58
0.64
0.71
0.74
0.73
F-score
Non-positive
0.83
0.85
0.89
0.89
0.89
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
21/24

22. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Impact of Training Size on Classification Results
It seems that we will get
better results with more
data. . .
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
22/24

23. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Towards Generation of Bottom-line Recommendations
Used the 33 questions from our preliminary analysis.
Compared automatic polarities of interventions with manual
annotations of bottom-line summaries.
Results
Recall
Precision
F1
0.62
0.82
0.71
We might get better results with more training data.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
23/24

24. Sentence Polarity for Evidence Based Medicine
Feasibility Study
Automatic Polarity Classification
Results
Conclusions
http://web.science.mq.edu.au/˜diego/medicalnlp/
There is strong agreement between polarity of interventions in
clinical abstracts and polarity in bottom-line summaries.
A SVM classifier with a range of features including context
features achieve better results than classifiers without context
features.
More training data will probably lead to better results.
Bottom-line conclusions
Polarity classification of abstract sentences may help EBM
summarisation.
More data are needed.
EBM Sentence Polarity
Sarker, Moll´, Paris
a
24/24