↓ Skip to main content

Natural Language Processing and the Oncologic History: Is There a Match?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Oncology Practice, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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.
Article details
Title
Natural Language Processing and the Oncologic History: Is There a Match?
Published in
Journal of Oncology Practice, July 2011
DOI 10.1200/jop.2011.000240
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) is creating rich databases documenting the cancer patient's care continuum. However, much of this data, especially narrative "oncologic histories," are "locked" within free text (unstructured) portions of notes. Nationwide incentives, ranging from certification (Quality Oncology Practice Initiative) to monetary reimbursement (the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act), increasingly require the translation of these histories into treatment summaries for patient use and into tools to assist in transitions of care. Unfortunately, formulation of treatment summaries from these data is difficult and time-consuming. The rapidly developing field of automated natural language processing may offer a solution to this communication problem.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Portugal 2 3%
United States 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 56 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 33%
Computer Science 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 19%
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 23 August 2012.
All research outputs
#22,693,701
of 27,781,301 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oncology Practice
#381
of 399 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,881
of 135,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oncology Practice
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,781,301 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 399 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 135,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.