↓ Skip to main content

Automatic vs. manual curation of a multi-source chemical dictionary: the impact on text mining

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, March 2010
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
citeulike
11 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Automatic vs. manual curation of a multi-source chemical dictionary: the impact on text mining
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, March 2010
DOI 10.1186/1758-2946-2-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina M Hettne, Antony J Williams, Erik M van Mulligen, Jos Kleinjans, Valery Tkachenko, Jan A Kors

Abstract

Previously, we developed a combined dictionary dubbed Chemlist for the identification of small molecules and drugs in text based on a number of publicly available databases and tested it on an annotated corpus. To achieve an acceptable recall and precision we used a number of automatic and semi-automatic processing steps together with disambiguation rules. However, it remained to be investigated which impact an extensive manual curation of a multi-source chemical dictionary would have on chemical term identification in text. ChemSpider is a chemical database that has undergone extensive manual curation aimed at establishing valid chemical name-to-structure relationships.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 5%
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 3 4%
Netherlands 2 2%
India 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 64 77%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 14%
Other 9 11%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 2 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 21 25%
Computer Science 20 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 6 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 2014.
All research outputs
#391,661
of 5,037,615 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#55
of 285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,909
of 93,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,037,615 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 93,669 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 90% 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 57% of its contemporaries.