↓ Skip to main content

Rewriting and suppressing UMLS terms for improved biomedical term identification

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 302)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
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
Rewriting and suppressing UMLS terms for improved biomedical term identification
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/2041-1480-1-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina M Hettne, Erik M van Mulligen, Martijn J Schuemie, Bob JA Schijvenaars, Jan A Kors

Abstract

Identification of terms is essential for biomedical text mining.. We concentrate here on the use of vocabularies for term identification, specifically the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). To make the UMLS more suitable for biomedical text mining we implemented and evaluated nine term rewrite and eight term suppression rules. The rules rely on UMLS properties that have been identified in previous work by others, together with an additional set of new properties discovered by our group during our work with the UMLS. Our work complements the earlier work in that we measure the impact on the number of terms identified by the different rules on a MEDLINE corpus. The number of uniquely identified terms and their frequency in MEDLINE were computed before and after applying the rules. The 50 most frequently found terms together with a sample of 100 randomly selected terms were evaluated for every rule.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 4 7%
Portugal 3 5%
United Kingdom 2 4%
Spain 2 4%
Australia 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
India 1 2%
China 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 40 71%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 30%
Other 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 28 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 27%
Linguistics 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 15 January 2015.
All research outputs
#684,898
of 9,440,187 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#22
of 302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,475
of 124,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,440,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 302 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 124,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.