↓ Skip to main content

Identifying named entities from PubMed® for enriching semantic categories

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Identifying named entities from PubMed® for enriching semantic categories
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0487-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sun Kim, Zhiyong Lu, W John Wilbur

Abstract

Controlled vocabularies such as the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS®) and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®) are widely used for biomedical natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the standard terminology in such collections suffers from low usage in biomedical literature, e.g. only 13% of UMLS terms appear in MEDLINE®. We here propose an efficient and effective method for extracting noun phrases for biomedical semantic categories. The proposed approach utilizes simple linguistic patterns to select candidate noun phrases based on headwords, and a machine learning classifier is used to filter out noisy phrases. For experiments, three NLP rules were tested and manually evaluated by three annotators. Our approaches showed over 93% precision on average for the headwords, "gene", "protein", "disease", "cell" and "cells". Although biomedical terms in knowledge-rich resources may define semantic categories, variations of the controlled terms in literature are still difficult to identify. The method proposed here is an effort to narrow the gap between controlled vocabularies and the entities used in text. Our extraction method cannot completely eliminate manual evaluation, however a simple and automated solution with high precision performance provides a convenient way for enriching semantic categories by incorporating terms obtained from the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 43 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 15 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 17%
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 22 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,382,001
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,191
of 7,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,548
of 254,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#71
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,254 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 254,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.