↓ Skip to main content

Automated concept and relationship extraction for the semi-automated ontology management (SEAM) system

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Automated concept and relationship extraction for the semi-automated ontology management (SEAM) system
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13326-015-0011-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Doing-Harris, Yarden Livnat, Stephane Meystre

Abstract

We develop medical-specialty specific ontologies that contain the settled science and common term usage. We leverage current practices in information and relationship extraction to streamline the ontology development process. Our system combines different text types with information and relationship extraction techniques in a low overhead modifiable system. Our SEmi-Automated ontology Maintenance (SEAM) system features a natural language processing pipeline for information extraction. Synonym and hierarchical groups are identified using corpus-based semantics and lexico-syntactic patterns. The semantic vectors we use are term frequency by inverse document frequency and context vectors. Clinical documents contain the terms we want in an ontology. They also contain idiosyncratic usage and are unlikely to contain the linguistic constructs associated with synonym and hierarchy identification. By including both clinical and biomedical texts, SEAM can recommend terms from those appearing in both document types. The set of recommended terms is then used to filter the synonyms and hierarchical relationships extracted from the biomedical corpus. We demonstrate the generality of the system across three use cases: ontologies for acute changes in mental status, Medically Unexplained Syndromes, and echocardiogram summary statements. Across the three uses cases, we held the number of recommended terms relatively constant by changing SEAM's parameters. Experts seem to find more than 300 recommended terms to be overwhelming. The approval rate of recommended terms increased as the number and specificity of clinical documents in the corpus increased. It was 60% when there were 199 clinical documents that were not specific to the ontology domain and 90% when there were 2879 documents very specific to the target domain. We found that fewer than 100 recommended synonym groups were also preferred. Approval rates for synonym recommendations remained low varying from 43% to 25% as the number of journal articles increased from 19 to 47. Overall the number of recommended hierarchical relationships was very low although approval was good. It varied between 67% and 31%. SEAM produced a concise list of recommended clinical terms, synonyms and hierarchical relationships regardless of medical domain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Student > Master 10 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 24 53%
Engineering 3 7%
Linguistics 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 18%
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 02 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,328,338
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#238
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,296
of 263,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 263,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.