↓ Skip to main content

Mining Skeletal Phenotype Descriptions from Scientific Literature

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Mining Skeletal Phenotype Descriptions from Scientific Literature
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0055656
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tudor Groza, Jane Hunter, Andreas Zankl

Abstract

Phenotype descriptions are important for our understanding of genetics, as they enable the computation and analysis of a varied range of issues related to the genetic and developmental bases of correlated characters. The literature contains a wealth of such phenotype descriptions, usually reported as free-text entries, similar to typical clinical summaries. In this paper, we focus on creating and making available an annotated corpus of skeletal phenotype descriptions. In addition, we present and evaluate a hybrid Machine Learning approach for mining phenotype descriptions from free text. Our hybrid approach uses an ensemble of four classifiers and experiments with several aggregation techniques. The best scoring technique achieves an F-1 score of 71.52%, which is close to the state-of-the-art in other domains, where training data exists in abundance. Finally, we discuss the influence of the features chosen for the model on the overall performance of the method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 7 25%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Computer Science 5 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 April 2013.
All research outputs
#3,559,875
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#44,086
of 193,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,680
of 284,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,008
of 5,084 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 284,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,084 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.