↓ Skip to main content

Extraction of potential adverse drug events from medical case reports

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
144 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
Extraction of potential adverse drug events from medical case reports
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/2041-1480-3-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harsha Gurulingappa, Abdul Mateen‐Rajpu, Luca Toldo

Abstract

: The sheer amount of information about potential adverse drug events published in medical case reports pose major challenges for drug safety experts to perform timely monitoring. Efficient strategies for identification and extraction of information about potential adverse drug events from free-text resources are needed to support pharmacovigilance research and pharmaceutical decision making. Therefore, this work focusses on the adaptation of a machine learning-based system for the identification and extraction of potential adverse drug event relations from MEDLINE case reports. It relies on a high quality corpus that was manually annotated using an ontology-driven methodology. Qualitative evaluation of the system showed robust results. An experiment with large scale relation extraction from MEDLINE delivered under-identified potential adverse drug events not reported in drug monographs. Overall, this approach provides a scalable auto-assistance platform for drug safety professionals to automatically collect potential adverse drug events communicated as free-text data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Belarus 1 <1%
Unknown 116 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 22%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 48 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Engineering 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 34 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 December 2012.
All research outputs
#3,576,547
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#57
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,724
of 280,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 280,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.