↓ Skip to main content

Automated systems to identify relevant documents in product risk management

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
23 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 systems to identify relevant documents in product risk management
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-12-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xue Ting Wee, Yvonne Koh, Chun Wei Yap

Abstract

Product risk management involves critical assessment of the risks and benefits of health products circulating in the market. One of the important sources of safety information is the primary literature, especially for newer products which regulatory authorities have relatively little experience with. Although the primary literature provides vast and diverse information, only a small proportion of which is useful for product risk assessment work. Hence, the aim of this study is to explore the possibility of using text mining to automate the identification of useful articles, which will reduce the time taken for literature search and hence improving work efficiency. In this study, term-frequency inverse document-frequency values were computed for predictors extracted from the titles and abstracts of articles related to three tumour necrosis factors-alpha blockers. A general automated system was developed using only general predictors and was tested for its generalizability using articles related to four other drug classes. Several specific automated systems were developed using both general and specific predictors and training sets of different sizes in order to determine the minimum number of articles required for developing such systems.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 11 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 22%
Computer Science 5 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 43%
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 2012.
All research outputs
#17,655,675
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,493
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,590
of 156,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#23
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. 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 156,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.