↓ Skip to main content

Analysing Syntactic Regularities and Irregularities in SNOMED-CT

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#44 of 368)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Analysing Syntactic Regularities and Irregularities in SNOMED-CT
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/2041-1480-3-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleni Mikroyannidi, Robert Stevens, Luigi Iannone, Alan Rector

Abstract

In this paper we demonstrate the usage of RIO; a framework for detecting syntactic regularities using cluster analysis of the entities in the signature of an ontology. Quality assurance in ontologies is vital for their use in real applications, as well as a complex and difficult task. It is also important to have such methods and tools when the ontology lacks documentation and the user cannot consult the ontology developers to understand its construction. One aspect of quality assurance is checking how well an ontology complies with established 'coding standards'; is the ontology regular in how descriptions of different types of entities are axiomatised? Is there a similar way to describe them and are there any corner cases that are not covered by a pattern? Detection of regularities and irregularities in axiom patterns should provide ontology authors and quality inspectors with a level of abstraction such that compliance to coding standards can be automated. However, there is a lack of such reverse ontology engineering methods and tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 January 2013.
All research outputs
#3,306,368
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#44
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,435
of 275,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 275,887 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.