A comparative evaluation of term recognition algorithms

Automatic Term Recognition (ATR) is a fundamental processing step preceding more complex tasks such as semantic search and ontology learning. From a large number of methodologies available in the literature only a few are able to handle both single and multi-word terms. In this paper we present a comparison of five such algorithms and propose a combined approach using a voting mechanism. We evaluated the six approaches using two different corpora and show how the voting algorithm performs best on one corpus (a collection of texts from Wikipedia) and less well using the Genia corpus (a standard life science corpus). This indicates that choice and design of corpus has a major impact on the evaluation of term recognition algorithms. Our experiments also showed that single-word terms can be equally important and occupy a fairly large proportion in certain domains. As a result, algorithms that ignore single-word terms may cause problems to tasks built on top of ATR. Effective ATR systems also need to take into account both the unstructured text and the structured aspects and this means information extraction techniques need to be integrated into the term recognition process.

Modeling the peptide-T cell receptor interaction by the comparative molecular similarity indices analysis-soft independent modeling of class analogy technique

A set of 38 epitopes and 183 non-epitopes, which bind to alleles of the HLA-A3 supertype, was subjected to a combination of comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA) and soft independent modeling of class analogy (SIMCA). During the process of T cell recognition, T cell receptors (TCR) interact with the central section of the bound nonamer peptide; thus only positions 4−8 were considered in the study. The derived model distinguished 82% of the epitopes and 73% of the non-epitopes after cross-validation in five groups. The overall preference from the model is for polar amino acids with high electron density and the ability to form hydrogen bonds. These so-called “aggressive” amino acids are flanked by small-sized residues, which enable such residues to protrude from the binding cleft and take an active role in TCR-mediated T cell recognition. Combinations of “aggressive” and “passive” amino acids in the middle part of epitopes constitute a putative TCR binding motif