<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>WI-ENRE in CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2015: Clinical Named Entity Recognition Based on CRF</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Jingchi Jiang</string-name>
          <email>jiangjingchi0118@163.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Yi Guan</string-name>
          <email>guanyi@hit.edu.cn</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Chao Zhao</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Harbin</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CN">China</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Named entity recognition of biomedical text is the shared task 1b of the 2015 CLEF eHealth evaluation lab, which focuses on making biomedical text easier to understand for patients and clinical workers. In this paper, we propose a novel method to recognize clinical entities based on conditional random fields (CRF). The biomedical texts are split into sections and paragraphs. Then the NLP tools are used for POS tagging and parsing, and four groups of features are extracted to train the entity recognition model. In the subsequent phase for entity normalization, the MetaMap of Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) tool is used to search for concept unique identifiers (CUIs) category. In addition, CRF++ package is adopted to recognize clinical entities in another phase for entity recognition. The experiments show that our system named as WI-ENRE, is effective in the named entity recognition of biomedical texts. The Fmeasure of EMEA and MEDLINE reach to 0.56 and 0.45 respectively in exact match.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Named Entity Recognition</kwd>
        <kwd>Conditional Random Fields</kwd>
        <kwd>UMLS</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>With the application of EMRs, hospitals and medical institutions generate masses of
biomedical text. Based on biomedical text, the medical big data analytics and the
building of heath knowledge network are the critical problem. As a precondition to solve the
problem, named entity recognition can provide a solution to extract information and
knowledge from biomedical text. Hence, the named entity recognition is becoming a
research hotspot.</p>
      <p>
        Biomedical text contains a wealth of information on patients covering their hospital
stays, including health conditions, diagnoses, performed tests and treatments. Named
entity recognition form biomedical text has a good research foundation[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1,2</xref>
        ]. In previous
years, several NLP shared tasks have addressed information extraction tasks such as
2010 i2B2/VA Challenge[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] as well as identifying protected health information (PHI) at
2014 i2b2/UTHealth challenge. The 2013 ShARe/CLEF eHealth T2 task[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] was
required to detect disorders spans and their concept unique identifiers (CUIs). On that
basis, the 2014 ShARe/CLEF eHealth T2 shared task[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] focused on extracting
information from biomedical text. In 2015, the CLEFeHealth addresses clinical named entity
recognition on task 1b[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6 ref7">6,7</xref>
        ]. The aim is to automatically identify clinically relevant
entities in medical text with French rather than English.
      </p>
      <p>Methods for entity recognition can be roughly divided into three categories:
rulebased, machine learning methods and a combination of both. The method of rule-based
mainly relies on proper nouns dictionaries and rules which wrote by language experts
or domain experts to identify the clinical entities. Compared to rule-based methods,
many more researchers choose machine learning methods on entity recognition.</p>
      <p>In this paper, we propose a novel method for task 1b of CLEFeHealth 2015. In order
to testify this method, we design a named entity recognition system, WI-ENRE, which
adopts machine learning method based on conditional random fields for the nine
categories and lexicon-based approach for geographic areas.</p>
      <p>The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. In Sec. 2, we discuss the materials and
methods in detail, and also focus on feature optimizing selection. Moreover, we conduct
the experiments to testify the effectiveness of WI-ENRE in Sec. 3. In Sec. 4, we
conclude this paper and discuss the directions for further work.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Methods</title>
      <p>
        In this study, the dataset which is called QUAERO French Medical Corpus[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] is
provided by 2015 CLEFeHealth shared tasks. The training set consists of 11 text files with
corresponding annotation files from EMEA and 833 text files with annotation files from
MEDLINE. 80% of the text files from MEDLINE and EMEA folders are selected as
the training data of model, respectively, while the remaining files are used for testing.
      </p>
      <p>In the process of entity recognition and entity normalization, some related resources
are used, which contain Stanford Parser based on French and UMLS tool. Then, the
feature selection will be described as the significant part in this paper. Finally, the
principle of conditional random field algorithm will be detailed in Sec. 2.4.
2.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Data</title>
        <p>The corpus is provided by the 2015 CLEFeHealth evaluation lab. The task 1b consists
of clinical named entity recognition and entity normalization from the file of
MEDLINE titles and EMEA documents.</p>
        <p>In order to testify the method of entity recognition, the training set provided by
CLEFeHealth is divided into two parts: the dataset for training which contains 676
documents and a total of 22,160 words, and the testing set contains 168 documents and a
total of 3,336 words. Moreover, the number of entity and deduplicated entity are
counted, respectively (as shown Tab. 1). In Tab. 2, we also give a few statistics for each
category in the training corpus.
2.2</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Resources</title>
        <p>Stanford Parser. As an existing open source toolkit, Stanford Parser is utilized to split
sentences of the biomedical text. Furthermore, Stanford Parser also provides the
function of POS tagging for multi-languages, such as English, Chinese, French, German
and so on.</p>
        <p>
          UMLS. Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) is used for mapping clinical entity
to the unique concept identifiers (CUIs). And MetaMap[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ] is a highly configurable
application to map biomedical text to the UMLS metathesaurus or equivalently to identify
metathesaurus concepts. This is the case of task 1b which is required to recognize
clinical entities and their CUIs.
2.3
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>Feature Selection</title>
        <p>Before model training, a large number of features need to be extracted from biomedical
texts. The features can be categorized into four groups: lexical features, orthographic
features, context features and lexicon features, listed in Tab. 3.</p>
        <p>Lexical features use the first and the last four characters of token to identify the
categories of entities. The POS of a token is helpful in named entity recognition. The
Stanford Parser tool is used to get POS tag of token, which is learnt on open domain
corpus and supports multiple languages by loading template.</p>
        <p>The tokens similar in shape can help the classifier “memorize” whether the token
belong to one type of the entities. We replaced uppercase letters, lowercase letters,
letters with diacritics and digits in a token by “A”, “a”, “b” and “0”, respectively. Length
of a token is a significant feature to clinical entity recognition. Similarly, information
of capital letters is also a strong feature to help us identify the entities which always
consist of uppercase letters. For example, the tokens of “Bio-safety Cabinet”, “CT” and
other proper noun can be identified by capital feature.</p>
        <p>The context features of the classifier contain the lowercase, first four characters, last
four characters, POS tags of two tokens before and after the current token.</p>
        <sec id="sec-2-3-1">
          <title>Category</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-3-2">
          <title>Lexical features</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-3-3">
          <title>Orthographic features</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-3-4">
          <title>Context features</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-2-3-5">
          <title>Lexicon feature</title>
          <p>lowercase of the current token
first four characters of the current token
last four characters of the current token
POS of the current token
shape of the current token
length of the current token
whether the current token contains a letter
whether the current token begins with a capital letter
whether all characters in the current token are capital letters
whether the current token contains a digit
whether all characters in the current token are digits
whether the current token consists of letters and digits
first four characters of two previous tokens
first four characters of two next tokens
last four characters of two previous tokens
last four characters of two next tokens
POS of two previous tokens
POS of two next tokens
whether the current token is in the “GEOG” dictionary</p>
          <p>
            Finally, a dictionary of geography based on French is extracted from webpage[
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
            ] of
city, state and country. All the words in the dictionaries are lowercased. Lexicon
features are used to judge whether the lowercase of the current token is in the dictionary
or not, rather than as a feature of CRF model. If the current token shows up in the
“GEOG” dictionary, we can conclude this token belongs to the entity of geographical
category
          </p>
          <p>After the features of token are generated, extracting an optimal subset from all the
features is the most important step for building an effective classification model. At
present, search algorithms can be divided into complete-based search, heuristic-based
search and random-based search. The sequential forward selection (SFS) and sequential
backward selection (SBS) based on heuristic are the most commonly-used algorithms
for selecting features. Beginning with an empty feature subset X, SFS add a feature x
into X, and ensure the optimal performance of evaluation function J(X). After n-times
iteration, the classification model is constructed based on local optimum. Instead of
SFS, SBS starts a full feature set, and eliminate a feature from the feature set for each
iteration.</p>
          <p>Compared with the above algorithms, we design and realize the bidirectional search
(BDS) algorithm which combines the advantages of SFS and SBS, and improves the
efficiency. The main idea of BDS is that SBS is used to search features, which is
beginning with a full feature subset, while using SFS algorithm to search features
beginning with an empty feature subset. Until a same feature subset is searched from both of
SFS and SBS after n-iteration, BDS uses the same feature subset as the final results.
After the selection step, the results for the different categories are shown in Fig. 1.</p>
          <p>Furthermore, we list the Fmeasure of the intermediate result, which is generated either
SFS or SBS, in the process of n-iteration. For each category of entity, the most optimal
combination of feature can be selected by BDS as shown in Fig. 2. Although the method
of feature selection may make out the local optimum, it can give better results than full
feature subset for the feature selection of different entity categories.
2.4 Conditional Random Field
The conditional random field algorithm is proposed by Lafferty in 2001. CRF is
arbitrary undirected graphical model that bring together the best of generative models and
Maximum Entropy Markov Models (MEMM). A potential function is defined as follow:
 yc ( yc )  exp(k fk (c, y | c, x))</p>
          <p>k
Where  y ( yc ) is a potential function of the fully connected network of Y, which is
c
built on undirected graph. y | c represents random variables which correspond to the
cth node in the fully connected network by boolean form. Given an observed sequence
of tokens, x  x1x2...xn , CRF can predicts a corresponding sequence of labels,
y*  y1 y2...yn . y* , which maximizes the conditional probability p( y | x) , is defined
as follow:
p( y | x) </p>
          <p>1
Z (x)
exp( k fk (c, yc , x))
cC k
(1)
(2)</p>
          <p>
            The conditional random field algorithm is widely used in named entity recognition.
The existing open source toolkit CRF++[
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
            ] is utilized to classify the tokens in a
sequence into the BIO scheme. The “B” indicates a token is the beginning of the clinical
entity. The “I” represents that a token is inside of the clinical entity. The “O” means
that a token does not belong to any category of the clinical entity.
          </p>
          <p>Firstly, the training and testing data are generated based on the features. A CRF
model can be learnt after training on the training data which is described in Sec. 2.1.
Then the tokens in the testing data can be classified into one of the entity categories or
non-entity category using CRF model.
3
3.1</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Experiments</title>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>System Design</title>
        <p>The WI-ENRE system consists of two main modules, ten sub modules and one
evaluation module. The purpose of this system is to automatically identify clinically relevant
entities in medical text in French.
 One of the major components is the named entity recognition module, which can
identify the clinical entity based on Conditional Random Field and generate the
specific model for each category. In the pre-processing, the biomedical texts are divided
into two parts: MEDLINE and EMEA. Then, using the CRF model to recognize the
clinical entity, the results will be evaluated and determined whether the feature set
should be optimized. Until the results meet the optimization condition, the CRF
models will be stored in the model repositories.
 The second module integrated with UMLS can select the CUIs to map clinical entity,
and generate the annotated biomedical texts automatically. Besides English, UMLS
does not support the other languages, such as French, Chinese and so on. Therefore,
the API of Google is used to translate the entities from French to English in the first
step. Then the translated entities are put into UMLS and mapped to the CUIs which
is selected with the first result.</p>
        <p>
          In the part of named entity recognition, the first step is the preprocessing of the file,
which contains the part-of-speech tagging by Stanford Parser and the generation of
training files based on entity category. The next step includes the training of CRF model,
the decoding of CRF by testing files and the evaluation of entity results. Then the
module of feature optimization is performed until the optimum result is found. Finally, all
of the optimum model for each category will be stored into model repositories.
For task 1b, we determined the performance of WI-ENRE by comparing the system
outputs against reference standard annotations. The system performance and
performance for each category are evaluated rigorously. Precision, recall and Fmeasure[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ] are
calculated from true positive, false positive and false negative annotations, which are
described as follows:
true positive (TP) = the annotation cue span from WI-ENRE overlapped with the
annotation cue span from the reference standard
false positive (FP) = an annotation cue span from WI-ENRE did not exist in the
reference standard annotations
false negative (FN) = an annotation cue span from the reference standard did not exist
in WI-ENRE annotations
The formulas of the precision, recall, Fmeasure are shown in Eqs. (3) - (5).
        </p>
        <p>Precision  TP / (TP  FP)</p>
        <p>Recall  TP / (TP  FN)
Fmeasure  2* Recall Precision / (Recall  Precision)
(3)
(4)
(5)
3.3</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Recognition Accuracy</title>
        <p>Using the evaluation metrics described above, the results of the WI-ENRE system are
shown in Tab. 4 and Tab. 5.</p>
        <p>The evaluation results of EMEA and MEDLINE are presented respectively. The
experiments show that results of EMEA are better than MEDLINE. In the 10 main
categories, GEOG based on lexicon get the high Fmeasure above 80 and 70 percent in
different corpus. Compared to GEOG, the categories which are based on CRF, such as
ANAT, PROC and LIVB, have a low Fmeasure about 70 percent.</p>
        <p>In addition, the rest categories are worse than ANAT, PROC and LIVB, with below
50 percent. Through the analysis, it is observed that the entity categories of low
accuracy do not basically select the orthographic features which are inside the feature range
of 6th and 11th (as shown in Fig.1). Moreover, we also found that the entity categories
which select the feature of POS get higher percentage of accuracy than others.
3.4</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>Error Analysis</title>
        <p>
          The errors in the WI-ENRE system are analyzed according to the error analysis
method[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ], which is roughly divided into three groups: type error (entity is correct but
type is wrong), missing error (entity is in the gold standard but not in the system output)
and spurious error (entity is in the system output but not in the gold standard). Based
on the types of errors, Tab. 6 lists the error distribution of WI-ENRE system.
        </p>
        <p>According to the three groups of error, missing errors make up the highest proportion
as 52.72%. Therefore, the recall of the WI-ENRE system is very low.
ANAT
CHEM
DEVI
DISO
GEOG
LIVB
OBJC
PHEN
PHYS
PROC
Spurious
total
2
1
3
2
2
124
10
2
3
1
6
58
1
3
11
4</p>
        <p>DISO
1
2
1
17
22
340
43
7
0</p>
        <p>The experiment shows that the categories of CHEM and DISO have high missing
error with the count of 946 and 846, respectively. Twenty-two PROC entities are
identified as DISO while 10 DISO entities are marked as PROC. It is difficult to distinguish
between PROC and DISO for WI-ENRE. In addition, ANAT, LIVB, PHYS have a
missing count of above 200. All of these led to the low recall rate of WI-ENRE system.
Compare to missing errors, the spurious errors of DISO are also much higher than
others. It follows that the system cannot recognize the category of DISO well, which not
only has the higher missing errors but also is the most serious error of spurious. For the
type error, a normal level which can be remained within acceptance criteria is shown
in Tab. 7.
4</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>This paper described the clinical entity recognition by machine learning method for the
task 1b of CLEFeHealth 2015. A suite of methods that included conditional random
fields, feature selection with BDS algorithm and entity normalization using MetaMap
performed the task well. Among these methods, the feature selection plays a crucial
role to enhance the performance for each category. Using a suitable feature subset, we
can obtain more accurate and reasonable classification than the full feature set. In order
to testify this method, we design the system, WI-ENRE, to address the clinical entity
based on CRF and achieve the normalization of clinical entity by UMLS.</p>
      <p>The future study will be focused on the feature optimization and the improvement
of recall rate. Moreover, the term vectors which are generated by word embedding can
be taken as the characterizing attribute. The other useful features and more suitable
methods will be researched to improve our system.</p>
      <p>Acknowledgments. The MEDLINE title and EMEA documents used in this paper were
provided by CLEFeHealth 2015 task 1b, and thanks to the organizing committee of
CLEF and the annotators of the dataset.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Carol</given-names>
            <surname>Friedman</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Philip O. Alderson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>John H. M. Austin</surname>
          </string-name>
          , James J.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cimino</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stephen</surname>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Johnson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>A general natural-language text processor for clinical radiology</article-title>
          .
          <source>J Am Med Inform Assoc</source>
          ,
          <volume>1</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>161</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>174</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1994</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Pierre</given-names>
            <surname>Zweigenbaum</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Menelas: an access system for medical records using naturallanguage</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computer Methods</source>
          and Programs in Biomedicine,
          <volume>45</volume>
          :
          <fpage>117</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>120</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1994</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Ozlem</given-names>
            <surname>Uzuner</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Brett R. South,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Shuying</given-names>
            <surname>Shen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>and Scott L.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>DuVall</year>
          .
          <year>2010</year>
          i2b2/
          <article-title>VAchallenge on concepts, assertions, and relations in clinical text</article-title>
          .
          <source>J Am Med InformAssoc</source>
          ,
          <volume>18</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>552</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>556</lpage>
          , Sep-Oct
          <year>2011</year>
          . Epub 2011 Jun 16.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Hanna</given-names>
            <surname>Suominen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Sanna Salantera, Sumithra Velupillai, Wendy W. Chapman,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guergana K. Savova</surname>
            , No_emie Elhadad, Sameer Pradhan, Brett R. South, Danielle L. Mowery,
            <given-names>Gareth J. F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jones</surname>
            , Johannes Leveling, Liadh Kelly, Lorraine Goeuriot, David Martinez,
            <given-names>and Guido</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zuccon</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Overview of the ShARe/CLEFeHealth evaluation lab 2013</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of CLEF 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science</source>
          , Berlin Heidelberg,
          <year>2013</year>
          . Springer.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Liadh</given-names>
            <surname>Kelly</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Lorraine Goeuriot, Gondy Leroy, Hanna Suominen, Tobias Schreck, Danielle L. Mowery, Sumithra Velupillai, Wendy W. Chapman, Guido Zuccon and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Joao</given-names>
            <surname>Palotti</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Overview of the ShARe/CLEFeHealth evaluation lab 2014</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the ShARe/CLEFeHealth Evaluation Lab</source>
          . Springer-Verlag,
          <year>2014</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Goeuriot</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kelly</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Suominen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hanlen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Névéol</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Grouin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Palotti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zuccon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Overview of the clef ehealth evaluation lab 2015</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: CLEF 2015 - 6th Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS)</source>
          , Springer (
          <year>September 2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Névéol</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Grouin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tannier</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hamon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kelly</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Goeuriot</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zweigenbaum</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>CLEF eHealth evaluation lab 2015 task 1b: clinical named entity recognition</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: CLEF 2015 Online Working Notes. CEUR-WS</source>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Névéol</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Grouin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Leixa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rosset</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zweigenbaum</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>The QUAERO French medical corpus: A resource for medical entity recognition and normalization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc of Bio TextMining Work</source>
          . pp.
          <fpage>24</fpage>
          --
          <lpage>30</lpage>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Alan</surname>
            <given-names>A</given-names>
          </string-name>
          . Aronson:
          <article-title>Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the Metamap program</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: AMIA</source>
          , pp. p.
          <fpage>17</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>21</lpage>
          . (
          <year>2001</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>10. http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>11. CRFsuite package: http://www.chokkan.org/software/crfsuite/.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hripcsak</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rothschild</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Agreement, the F-measure, and reliability in information retrieval</article-title>
          .
          <source>J Am Med Inform Assoc</source>
          <volume>12</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          )
          <fpage>296</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>8</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Wellner</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Huyck</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Mardis</surname>
          </string-name>
          et al., “Rapidly retargetable approaches to de-identification in medical records,
          <source>” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>14</volume>
          , no.
          <issue>5</issue>
          , pp.
          <fpage>564</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>573</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>