ICAAIC 2023

Text Summarization of Medical Documents using Abstractive Techniques

Comparing T5, BART, and PEGASUS for summarizing medical research documents that lack their own abstracts.

Evani Lalitha Kasarapu Ramani Dudekula Shahida Esikela Venkata Sai Deepak M. Hima Bindu Diguri Shaikshavali
Department of Information Technology, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College, Tirupati, India
Paper DOI
TL;DR — A lot of medical research documents don't come with a summary or abstract, making it hard for researchers to quickly judge relevance. We compare five abstractive summarization models — T5 (small/base/large), BART, and PEGASUS — on the SUMPUBMED dataset, and find PEGASUS performs best by ROUGE score, with BART close behind.
32,689
Documents
(SUMPUBMED)
5
Models
compared
0.37
Best ROUGE-1
Recall (PEGASUS)
0.36
Best ROUGE-1
F1 (PEGASUS)

Summarizing What Has No Summary

Medical researchers are exposed to enormous amounts of medical information in the form of medical news, clinical trial reports, research articles, etc. Researchers would need the documents' summaries that help them decide to do an in-depth study. Even though there are documents that contain abstracts, a lot of medical documents do not contain abstracts or summaries. The best solution to address this issue is abstractive text summarization.

Extracting useful information and summarizing the information from medical documents inclined to the best interests of the user is a challenge that is addressed in this study. For this, several abstractive summarization techniques such as T5, BART, and PEGASUS are used, and based on ROUGE metrics, PEGASUS is identified to perform better than the other models, achieving the highest ROUGE score of 0.37.

Three Abstractive Summarizers, One Dataset

All models are evaluated on documents from the SUMPUBMED dataset (derived from PubMed, 32,689 text documents), and scored with ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L (recall, precision, and F1 for each).

Model

T5

Text-to-Text Transfer Transformer; frames every NLP task, including summarization, as text-to-text. Evaluated at small, base, and large sizes.

Model

BART

Bidirectional Auto-Regressive Transformer, trained as a denoising autoencoder to reconstruct original text from a corrupted version.

Model

PEGASUS

Masks whole sentences (selected deterministically, not randomly) and generates them as the output — pre-training that mirrors the summarization task itself.

ROUGE Evaluation

PEGASUS leads on most ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L recall/F1 metrics; BART is close behind and wins on several precision metrics.

Bar chart of ROUGE-1/2/L recall, precision, and F1 for five models
Figure 1. ROUGE performance metrics across T5 (small/base/large), BART, and PEGASUS.

Quantitative Comparison

ROUGE-1 scores across models. Bold indicates the best result.

ModelROUGE-1 Recall↑ROUGE-1 Precision↑ROUGE-1 F1↑
T5 small0.1270.2720.173
T5 base0.2080.3080.248
T5 large0.0810.2550.123
BART large CNN0.3060.3650.333
PEGASUS0.3700.3540.362

PEGASUS achieves the highest ROUGE-1 recall (0.37) and F1 (0.36); BART narrowly leads on precision (0.365). The pattern holds across ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L: PEGASUS and BART are consistently the strongest of the five, with the three T5 sizes trailing.

BibTeX

@inproceedings{evani2023textsumm, abbr = {ICAAIC}, title = {Text Summarization of Medical Documents using Abstractive Techniques}, author = {Evani, Lalitha and Ramani, Kasarapu and Shahida, Dudekula and Deepak, Esikela Venkata Sai and Bindu, M. Hima and Shaikshavali, Diguri}, booktitle = {2023 2nd International Conference on Applied Artificial Intelligence and Computing (ICAAIC)}, address = {Salem, India}, pages = {939--943}, publisher = {IEEE}, year = {2023}, doi = {10.1109/ICAAIC56838.2023.10140885}, url = {https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10140885/} }
Paper