↓ Skip to main content

Toward a comprehensive drug ontology: extraction of drug-indication relations from diverse information sources

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Toward a comprehensive drug ontology: extraction of drug-indication relations from diverse information sources
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13326-016-0110-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark E Sharp

Abstract

Drug ontologies could help pharmaceutical researchers overcome information overload and speed the pace of drug discovery, thus benefiting the industry and patients alike. Drug-disease relations, specifically drug-indication relations, are a prime candidate for representation in ontologies. There is a wealth of available drug-indication information, but structuring and integrating it is challenging. We created a drug-indication database (DID) of data from 12 openly available, commercially available, and proprietary information sources, integrated by terminological normalization to UMLS and other authorities. Across sources, there are 29,964 unique raw drug/chemical names, 10,938 unique raw indication "target" terms, and 192,008 unique raw drug-indication pairs. Drug/chemical name normalization to CAS numbers or UMLS concepts reduced the unique name count to 91 or 85% of the raw count, respectively, 84% if combined. Indication "target" normalization to UMLS "phenotypic-type" concepts reduced the unique term count to 57% of the raw count. The 12 sources of raw data varied widely in coverage (numbers of unique drug/chemical and indication concepts and relations) generally consistent with the idiosyncrasies of each source, but had strikingly little overlap, suggesting that we successfully achieved source/raw data diversity. The DID is a database of structured drug-indication relations intended to facilitate building practical, comprehensive, integrated drug ontologies. The DID itself is not an ontology, but could be converted to one more easily than the contributing raw data. Our methodology could be adapted to the creation of other structured drug-disease databases such as for contraindications, precautions, warnings, and side effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 15 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 19 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,311,050
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#213
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,971
of 421,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 421,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.