REVIEW 1 cited by
W-procer: Weighted Prototypical Contrastive Learning for Medical Few-Shot Named Entity Recognition
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Contrastive learning has become a popular solution for few-shot Name Entity Recognization (NER). The conventional configuration strives to reduce the distance between tokens with the same labels and increase the distance between tokens with different labels. The effect of this setup may, however, in the medical domain, there are a lot of entities annotated as OUTSIDE (O), and they are undesirably pushed apart to other entities that are not labeled as OUTSIDE (O) by the current contrastive learning method end up with a noisy prototype for the semantic representation of the label, though there are many OUTSIDE (O) labeled entities are relevant to the labeled entities. To address this challenge, we propose a novel method named Weighted Prototypical Contrastive Learning for Medical Few Shot Named Entity Recognization (W-PROCER). Our approach primarily revolves around constructing the prototype-based contractive loss and weighting network. These components play a crucial role in assisting the model in differentiating the negative samples from OUTSIDE (O) tokens and enhancing the discrimination ability of contrastive learning. Experimental results show that our proposed W-PROCER framework significantly outperforms the strong baselines on the three medical benchmark datasets.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Research on Medical Named Entity Identification Based On Prompt-Biomrc Model and Its Application in Intelligent Consultation System
A prompt-augmented BioBERT-MRC model is claimed to improve medical NER, but the reported gains are small and the paper provides insufficient detail to verify the method or results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.