Papers › Comparison of biomedical relationship extraction methods and models for knowledge...

Comparison of biomedical relationship extraction methods and models for knowledge graph creation

5 Jan 2022arXiv:2201.01647archive 2025-07-28

Nikola Milosevic, Wolfgang Thielemann

Biomedical research is growing at such an exponential pace that scientists, researchers, and practitioners are no more able to cope with the amount of published literature in the domain. The knowledge presented in the literature needs to be systematized in such a way that claims and hypotheses can be easily found, accessed, and validated. Knowledge graphs can provide such a framework for semantic knowledge representation from literature. However, in order to build a knowledge graph, it is necessary to extract knowledge as relationships between biomedical entities and normalize both entities and relationship types. In this paper, we present and compare few rule-based and machine learning-based (Naive Bayes, Random Forests as examples of traditional machine learning methods and DistilBERT, PubMedBERT, T5 and SciFive-based models as examples of modern deep learning transformers) methods for scalable relationship extraction from biomedical literature, and for the integration into the knowledge graphs. We examine how resilient are these various methods to unbalanced and fairly small datasets. Our experiments show that transformer-based models handle well both small (due to pre-training on a large dataset) and unbalanced datasets. The best performing model was the PubMedBERT-based model fine-tuned on balanced data, with a reported F1-score of 0.92. DistilBERT-based model followed with F1-score of 0.89, performing faster and with lower resource requirements. BERT-based models performed better then T5-based generative models.

Code

No code repository is listed for this paper in the archive or in Syntology's graph.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections