↓ Skip to main content

Mining images in biomedical publications: Detection and analysis of gel diagrams

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Mining images in biomedical publications: Detection and analysis of gel diagrams
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/2041-1480-5-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Kuhn, Mate Levente Nagy, ThaiBinh Luong, Michael Krauthammer

Abstract

Authors of biomedical publications use gel images to report experimental results such as protein-protein interactions or protein expressions under different conditions. Gel images offer a concise way to communicate such findings, not all of which need to be explicitly discussed in the article text. This fact together with the abundance of gel images and their shared common patterns makes them prime candidates for automated image mining and parsing. We introduce an approach for the detection of gel images, and present a workflow to analyze them. We are able to detect gel segments and panels at high accuracy, and present preliminary results for the identification of gene names in these images. While we cannot provide a complete solution at this point, we present evidence that this kind of image mining is feasible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Germany 1 3%
Slovenia 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Japan 1 3%
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 28 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 37%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 13 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 26%
Linguistics 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 3 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#5,329,726
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#76
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,417
of 234,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 234,806 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 78% 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.