Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, Hoifung Poon
Pretraining large neural language models, such as BERT, has led to impressive gains on many natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, most pretraining efforts focus on general domain corpora, such as newswire and Web. A prevailing assumption is that even domain-specific pretraining can benefit by starting from general-domain language models. In this paper, we challenge this assumption by showing that for domains with abundant unlabeled text, such as biomedicine, pretraining language models from scratch results in substantial gains over continual pretraining of general-domain language models. To facilitate this investigation, we compile a comprehensive biomedical NLP benchmark from publicly-available datasets. Our experiments show that domain-specific pretraining serves as a solid foundation for a wide range of biomedical NLP tasks, leading to new state-of-the-art results across the board. Further, in conducting a thorough evaluation of modeling choices, both for pretraining and task-specific fine-tuning, we discover that some common practices are unnecessary with BERT models, such as using complex tagging schemes in named entity recognition (NER). To help accelerate research in biomedical NLP, we have released our state-of-the-art pretrained and task-specific models for the community, and created a leaderboard featuring our BLURB benchmark (short for Biomedical Language Understanding & Reasoning Benchmark) at https://aka.ms/BLURB.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relation Extraction | GAD | Micro F1 | 82.34 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Relation Extraction | DDI | Micro F1 | 82.36 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Relation Extraction | ChemProt | Micro F1 | 77.24 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Question Answering | BLURB | Accuracy | 71.7 | PubMedBERT (uncased; abstracts) |
| Question Answering | PubMedQA | Accuracy | 55.84 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Question Answering | BioASQ | Accuracy | 87.56 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Information Extraction | DDI extraction 2013 corpus | F1 | 0.8236 | PubMedBERT |
| Information Extraction | DDI extraction 2013 corpus | Micro F1 | 82.36 | PubMedBERT |
| Information Extraction | EBM-NLP | F1 | 73.38 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Named Entity Recognition (NER) | NCBI-disease | F1 | 87.82 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Named Entity Recognition (NER) | BC2GM | F1 | 84.52 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Named Entity Recognition (NER) | JNLPBA | F1 | 79.1 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Text Classification | BLURB | F1 | 82.32 | PubMedBERT (uncased; abstracts) |
| Text Classification | HOC | Micro F1 | 82.32 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Participant Intervention Comparison Outcome Extraction | EBM-NLP | F1 | 73.38 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Document Classification | HOC | Micro F1 | 82.32 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Biomedical Information Retrieval | EBM PICO | Macro F1 word level | 73.38 | PubMedBERT uncased |
| Classification | BLURB | F1 | 82.32 | PubMedBERT (uncased; abstracts) |
| Classification | HOC | Micro F1 | 82.32 | PubMedBERT uncased |