Publication Date: 30 Jan 2012
Type: Original Research
Journal: Biomedical Informatics Insights
Citation: Biomedical Informatics Insights 2012:5 (Suppl. 1) 17-30
doi: 10.4137/BII.S8948
We describe the Open University team's submission to the 2011 i2b2/VA/Cincinnati Medical Natural Language Processing Challenge, Track 2 Shared Task for sentiment analysis in suicide notes. This Shared Task focused on the development of automatic systems that identify, at the sentence level, affective text of 15 specific emotions from suicide notes. We propose a hybrid model that incorporates a number of natural language processing techniques, including lexicon-based keyword spotting, CRF-based emotion cue identification, and machine learning-based emotion classification. The results generated by different techniques are integrated using different vote-based merging strategies. The automated system performed well against the manually-annotated gold standard, and achieved encouraging results with a micro-averaged F-measure score of 61.39% in textual emotion recognition, which was ranked 1st place out of 24 participant teams in this challenge. The results demonstrate that effective emotion recognition by an automated system is possible when a large annotated corpus is available.
PDF (604.78 KB PDF FORMAT)
RIS citation (ENDNOTE, REFERENCE MANAGER, PROCITE, REFWORKS)
BibTex citation (BIBDESK, LATEX)
It's a great experience publishing with Biomedical Informatics Insights. I am particularly impressed with the in-depth and constructive comments provided by the reviewers within such a short time-frame. The typesetting was not only prompt, but most importantly, effective. In fact, this was among the very few publication experiences that I have had when no correction was needed in the author proofs. I highly recommend Biomedical Informatics Insights to both readers and prospective ...
All authors are surveyed after their articles are published. Authors are asked to rate their experience in a variety of areas, and their responses help us to monitor our performance. Presented here are their responses in some key areas. No 'poor' or 'very poor' responses were received; these are represented in the 'other' category.See Our Results
Copyright © 2013 Libertas Academica Ltd (except open access articles and accompanying metadata and supplementary files.)
Facebook Google+ Twitter
Pinterest Tumblr YouTube