A Comparison of Word Embeddings for the Biomedical Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Neural word embeddings have been widely used in biomedical Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications since they provide vector representations of words that capture the semantic properties of words and the linguistic relationship between words. Many biomedical applications use different textual sources to train word embeddings and apply these word embeddings to downstream biomedical applications. However, there has been little work on comprehensively evaluating the word embeddings trained from these resources. In this study, we provide a comprehensive empirical evaluation of word embeddings trained from four different resources, namely clinical notes, biomedical publications, Wikepedia, and news. We perform the evaluation qualitatively and quantitatively. In qualitative evaluation, we manually inspect five most similar medical words to a given set of target medical words, and then analyze word embeddings through the visualization of those word embeddings. Quantitative evaluation falls into two categories: extrinsic and intrinsic evaluation. Based on the evaluation results, we can draw the following conclusions. First, EHR and PubMed can capture the semantics of medical terms better than GloVe and Google News and find more relevant similar medical terms. Second, the medical semantic similarity captured by the word embeddings trained on EHR and PubMed are closer to human experts' judgments, compared to these trained on GloVe and Google News. Third, there does not exist a consistent global ranking of word embedding quality for downstream biomedical NLP applications. However, adding word embeddings as extra features will improve results on most downstream tasks. Finally, word embeddings trained from a similar domain corpus do not necessarily have better performance than other word embeddings for any downstream biomedical tasks.