↓ Skip to main content

Semantic similarity in the biomedical domain: an evaluation across knowledge sources

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
6 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
Semantic similarity in the biomedical domain: an evaluation across knowledge sources
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-261
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vijay N Garla, Cynthia Brandt

Abstract

Semantic similarity measures estimate the similarity between concepts, and play an important role in many text processing tasks. Approaches to semantic similarity in the biomedical domain can be roughly divided into knowledge based and distributional based methods. Knowledge based approaches utilize knowledge sources such as dictionaries, taxonomies, and semantic networks, and include path finding measures and intrinsic information content (IC) measures. Distributional measures utilize, in addition to a knowledge source, the distribution of concepts within a corpus to compute similarity; these include corpus IC and context vector methods. Prior evaluations of these measures in the biomedical domain showed that distributional measures outperform knowledge based path finding methods; but more recent studies suggested that intrinsic IC based measures exceed the accuracy of distributional approaches. Limitations of previous evaluations of similarity measures in the biomedical domain include their focus on the SNOMED CT ontology, and their reliance on small benchmarks not powered to detect significant differences between measure accuracy. There have been few evaluations of the relative performance of these measures on other biomedical knowledge sources such as the UMLS, and on larger, recently developed semantic similarity benchmarks.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 5%
Portugal 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
France 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 84 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 25%
Researcher 20 20%
Student > Master 16 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 49 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 14 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 October 2012.
All research outputs
#8,362,834
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,184
of 7,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,346
of 179,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#41
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 179,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 56% of its contemporaries.