↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the Impact of Case Sensitivity and Term Information Gain on Biomedical Concept Recognition

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Assessing the Impact of Case Sensitivity and Term Information Gain on Biomedical Concept Recognition
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0119091
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tudor Groza, Karin Verspoor

Abstract

Concept recognition (CR) is a foundational task in the biomedical domain. It supports the important process of transforming unstructured resources into structured knowledge. To date, several CR approaches have been proposed, most of which focus on a particular set of biomedical ontologies. Their underlying mechanisms vary from shallow natural language processing and dictionary lookup to specialized machine learning modules. However, no prior approach considers the case sensitivity characteristics and the term distribution of the underlying ontology on the CR process. This article proposes a framework that models the CR process as an information retrieval task in which both case sensitivity and the information gain associated with tokens in lexical representations (e.g., term labels, synonyms) are central components of a strategy for generating term variants. The case sensitivity of a given ontology is assessed based on the distribution of so-called case sensitive tokens in its terms, while information gain is modelled using a combination of divergence from randomness and mutual information. An extensive evaluation has been carried out using the CRAFT corpus. Experimental results show that case sensitivity awareness leads to an increase of up to 0.07 F1 against a non-case sensitive baseline on the Protein Ontology and GO Cellular Component. Similarly, the use of information gain leads to an increase of up to 0.06 F1 against a standard baseline in the case of GO Biological Process and Molecular Function and GO Cellular Component. Overall, subject to the underlying token distribution, these methods lead to valid complementary strategies for augmenting term label sets to improve concept recognition.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Psychology 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 13 31%
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 21 March 2015.
All research outputs
#17,751,741
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#147,177
of 194,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,300
of 263,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,095
of 6,078 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 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 194,556 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 263,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,078 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.