↓ Skip to main content

A linear classifier based on entity recognition tools and a statistical approach to method extraction in the protein-protein interaction literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A linear classifier based on entity recognition tools and a statistical approach to method extraction in the protein-protein interaction literature
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-12-s8-s12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anália Lourenço, Michael Conover, Andrew Wong, Azadeh Nematzadeh, Fengxia Pan, Hagit Shatkay, Luis M Rocha

Abstract

We participated, as Team 81, in the Article Classification and the Interaction Method subtasks (ACT and IMT, respectively) of the Protein-Protein Interaction task of the BioCreative III Challenge. For the ACT, we pursued an extensive testing of available Named Entity Recognition and dictionary tools, and used the most promising ones to extend our Variable Trigonometric Threshold linear classifier. Our main goal was to exploit the power of available named entity recognition and dictionary tools to aid in the classification of documents relevant to Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI). For the IMT, we focused on obtaining evidence in support of the interaction methods used, rather than on tagging the document with the method identifiers. We experimented with a primarily statistical approach, as opposed to employing a deeper natural language processing strategy. In a nutshell, we exploited classifiers, simple pattern matching for potential PPI methods within sentences, and ranking of candidate matches using statistical considerations. Finally, we also studied the benefits of integrating the method extraction approach that we have used for the IMT into the ACT pipeline.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 7%
Germany 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 24 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2012.
All research outputs
#15,255,201
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,362
of 7,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,897
of 132,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#65
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 132,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.