↓ Skip to main content

eGARD: Extracting associations between genomic anomalies and drug responses from text

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
eGARD: Extracting associations between genomic anomalies and drug responses from text
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0189663
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. S. M. Ashique Mahmood, Shruti Rao, Peter McGarvey, Cathy Wu, Subha Madhavan, K. Vijay-Shanker

Abstract

Tumor molecular profiling plays an integral role in identifying genomic anomalies which may help in personalizing cancer treatments, improving patient outcomes and minimizing risks associated with different therapies. However, critical information regarding the evidence of clinical utility of such anomalies is largely buried in biomedical literature. It is becoming prohibitive for biocurators, clinical researchers and oncologists to keep up with the rapidly growing volume and breadth of information, especially those that describe therapeutic implications of biomarkers and therefore relevant for treatment selection. In an effort to improve and speed up the process of manually reviewing and extracting relevant information from literature, we have developed a natural language processing (NLP)-based text mining (TM) system called eGARD (extracting Genomic Anomalies association with Response to Drugs). This system relies on the syntactic nature of sentences coupled with various textual features to extract relations between genomic anomalies and drug response from MEDLINE abstracts. Our system achieved high precision, recall and F-measure of up to 0.95, 0.86 and 0.90, respectively, on annotated evaluation datasets created in-house and obtained externally from PharmGKB. Additionally, the system extracted information that helps determine the confidence level of extraction to support prioritization of curation. Such a system will enable clinical researchers to explore the use of published markers to stratify patients upfront for 'best-fit' therapies and readily generate hypotheses for new clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Psychology 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Computer Science 4 10%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 27 March 2019.
All research outputs
#699,957
of 25,028,065 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#9,415
of 217,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,100
of 452,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#175
of 3,412 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,028,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 217,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 452,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,412 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.