↓ Skip to main content

Automatic categorization of diverse experimental information in the bioscience literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
9 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
Automatic categorization of diverse experimental information in the bioscience literature
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruihua Fang, Gary Schindelman, Kimberly Van Auken, Jolene Fernandes, Wen Chen, Xiaodong Wang, Paul Davis, Mary Ann Tuli, Steven J Marygold, Gillian Millburn, Beverley Matthews, Haiyan Zhang, Nick Brown, William M Gelbart, Paul W Sternberg

Abstract

Curation of information from bioscience literature into biological knowledge databases is a crucial way of capturing experimental information in a computable form. During the biocuration process, a critical first step is to identify from all published literature the papers that contain results for a specific data type the curator is interested in annotating. This step normally requires curators to manually examine many papers to ascertain which few contain information of interest and thus, is usually time consuming. We developed an automatic method for identifying papers containing these curation data types among a large pool of published scientific papers based on the machine learning method Support Vector Machine (SVM). This classification system is completely automatic and can be readily applied to diverse experimental data types. It has been in use in production for automatic categorization of 10 different experimental datatypes in the biocuration process at WormBase for the past two years and it is in the process of being adopted in the biocuration process at FlyBase and the Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD). We anticipate that this method can be readily adopted by various databases in the biocuration community and thereby greatly reducing time spent on an otherwise laborious and demanding task. We also developed a simple, readily automated procedure to utilize training papers of similar data types from different bodies of literature such as C. elegans and D. melanogaster to identify papers with any of these data types for a single database. This approach has great significance because for some data types, especially those of low occurrence, a single corpus often does not have enough training papers to achieve satisfactory performance.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
South Africa 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
Greece 1 2%
Unknown 40 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 39%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 46%
Computer Science 8 17%
Engineering 2 4%
Linguistics 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 5 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 April 2012.
All research outputs
#6,911,194
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,683
of 7,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,635
of 246,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#30
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 246,248 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.