↓ Skip to main content

Concept selection for phenotypes and diseases using learn to rank

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, June 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
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Concept selection for phenotypes and diseases using learn to rank
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13326-015-0019-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel Collier, Anika Oellrich, Tudor Groza

Abstract

Phenotypes form the basis for determining the existence of a disease against the given evidence. Much of this evidence though remains locked away in text - scientific articles, clinical trial reports and electronic patient records (EPR) - where authors use the full expressivity of human language to report their observations. In this paper we exploit a combination of off-the-shelf tools for extracting a machine understandable representation of phenotypes and other related concepts that concern the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. These are tested against a gold standard EPR collection that has been annotated with Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) concept identifiers: the ShARE/CLEF 2013 corpus for disorder detection. We evaluate four pipelines as stand-alone systems and then attempt to optimise semantic-type based performance using several learn-to-rank (LTR) approaches - three pairwise and one listwise. We observed that whilst overall Apache cTAKES tended to outperform other stand-alone systems on a strong recall (R = 0.57), precision was low (P = 0.09) leading to low-to-moderate F1 measure (F1 = 0.16). Moreover, there is substantial variation in system performance across semantic types for disorders. For example, the concept Findings (T033) seemed to be very challenging for all systems. Combining systems within LTR improved F1 substantially (F1 = 0.24) particularly for Disease or syndrome (T047) and Anatomical abnormality (T190). Whilst recall is improved markedly, precision remains a challenge (P = 0.15, R = 0.59).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 31 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Professor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 12 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 3 9%
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 01 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,633
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#238
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,038
of 267,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 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 267,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.