↓ Skip to main content

CNN-based ranking for biomedical entity normalization

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
CNN-based ranking for biomedical entity normalization
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1805-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haodi Li, Qingcai Chen, Buzhou Tang, Xiaolong Wang, Hua Xu, Baohua Wang, Dong Huang

Abstract

Most state-of-the-art biomedical entity normalization systems, such as rule-based systems, merely rely on morphological information of entity mentions, but rarely consider their semantic information. In this paper, we introduce a novel convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture that regards biomedical entity normalization as a ranking problem and benefits from semantic information of biomedical entities. The CNN-based ranking method first generates candidates using handcrafted rules, and then ranks the candidates according to their semantic information modeled by CNN as well as their morphological information. Experiments on two benchmark datasets for biomedical entity normalization show that our proposed CNN-based ranking method outperforms traditional rule-based method with state-of-the-art performance. We propose a CNN architecture that regards biomedical entity normalization as a ranking problem. Comparison results show that semantic information is beneficial to biomedical entity normalization and can be well combined with morphological information in our CNN architecture for further improvement.

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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 44 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 55 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Engineering 7 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Linguistics 4 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 50 34%
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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,349
of 7,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,363
of 323,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#85
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,312 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 323,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.