Table 7. Classification results of DDI classification.
Model | F1-score on each relation type | Overall performance | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Int | Advice | Effect | Mechanism | P | R | F | |
Zhang et al. (SOTA) | 0.5400 | 0.8000 | 0.7200 | 0.7400 | 0.7400 | 0.7200 | 0.7300 |
SEN | 0.3569 | 0.8336 | 0.7978 | 0.8463 | 0.7940 | 0.7832 | 0.7776 |
Direct comparison | |||||||
SEN + BioAvgWord (cbow) | 0.3150 | 0.7787 | 0.8000 | 0.8824 | 0.7883 | 0.7814 | 0.7731 |
SEN + Yu et al. (cbow) | 0.4285 | 0.8263 | 0.8133 | 0.8559 | 0.7948 | 0.7961 | 0.7916 |
SEN + BioConceptVec (cbow) | 0.5206 | 0.8423 | 0.8191 | 0.8692 | 0.8167 | 0.8161 | 0.8105 |
Different embedding methods | |||||||
SEN + BioConcept (skip-gram) | 0.4090 | 0.8164 | 0.8255 | 0.8626 | 0.8088 | 0.8025 | 0.7941 |
SEN + BioConcept (GloVe) | 0.4587 | 0.8100 | 0.8160 | 0.8702 | 0.8046 | 0.8029 | 0.7963 |
SEN + BioConcept (fastText) | 0.4382 | 0.8153 | 0.8200 | 0.8571 | 0.7999 | 0.7998 | 0.7930 |