↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of relevant biomedical documents: a human microbiome case study

Overview of attention for article published in BioData Mining, September 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
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Prediction of relevant biomedical documents: a human microbiome case study
Published in
BioData Mining, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13040-015-0061-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Thompson, Juliette C. Madan, Jason H. Moore

Abstract

Retrieving relevant biomedical literature has become increasingly difficult due to the large volume and rapid growth of biomedical publication. A query to a biomedical retrieval system often retrieves hundreds of results. Since the searcher will not likely consider all of these documents, ranking the documents is important. Ranking by recency, as PubMed does, takes into account only one factor indicating potential relevance. This study explores the use of the searcher's relevance feedback judgments to support relevance ranking based on features more general than recency. It was found that the researcher's relevance judgments could be used to accurately predict the relevance of additional documents: both using tenfold cross-validation and by training on publications from 2008-2010 and testing on documents from 2011. This case study has shown the promise for relevance feedback to improve biomedical document retrieval. A researcher's judgments as to which initially retrieved documents are relevant, or not, can be leveraged to predict additional relevant documents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 30%
Computer Science 5 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Chemistry 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 2 10%
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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,238,195
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#204
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,119
of 267,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 267,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.