↓ Skip to main content

Weakly supervised learning of biomedical information extraction from curated data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
275 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Weakly supervised learning of biomedical information extraction from curated data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0844-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suvir Jain, Kashyap R., Tsung-Ting Kuo, Shitij Bhargava, Gordon Lin, Chun-Nan Hsu

Abstract

Numerous publicly available biomedical databases derive data by curating from literatures. The curated data can be useful as training examples for information extraction, but curated data usually lack the exact mentions and their locations in the text required for supervised machine learning. This paper describes a general approach to information extraction using curated data as training examples. The idea is to formulate the problem as cost-sensitive learning from noisy labels, where the cost is estimated by a committee of weak classifiers that consider both curated data and the text. We test the idea on two information extraction tasks of Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). The first task is to extract target phenotypes (diseases or traits) of a study and the second is to extract ethnicity backgrounds of study subjects for different stages (initial or replication). Experimental results show that our approach can achieve 87 % of Precision-at-2 (P@2) for disease/trait extraction, and 0.83 of F1-Score for stage-ethnicity extraction, both outperforming their cost-insensitive baseline counterparts. The results show that curated biomedical databases can potentially be reused as training examples to train information extractors without expert annotation or refinement, opening an unprecedented opportunity of using "big data" in biomedical text mining.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 18 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Engineering 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 14 24%
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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,355,821
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,378
of 7,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,687
of 394,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#100
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 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 7,289 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 394,940 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 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.