↓ Skip to main content

Text Mining Effectively Scores and Ranks the Literature for Improving Chemical-Gene-Disease Curation at the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Text Mining Effectively Scores and Ranks the Literature for Improving Chemical-Gene-Disease Curation at the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0058201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allan Peter Davis, Thomas C. Wiegers, Robin J. Johnson, Jean M. Lay, Kelley Lennon-Hopkins, Cynthia Saraceni-Richards, Daniela Sciaky, Cynthia Grondin Murphy, Carolyn J. Mattingly

Abstract

The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD; http://ctdbase.org/) is a public resource that curates interactions between environmental chemicals and gene products, and their relationships to diseases, as a means of understanding the effects of environmental chemicals on human health. CTD provides a triad of core information in the form of chemical-gene, chemical-disease, and gene-disease interactions that are manually curated from scientific articles. To increase the efficiency, productivity, and data coverage of manual curation, we have leveraged text mining to help rank and prioritize the triaged literature. Here, we describe our text-mining process that computes and assigns each article a document relevancy score (DRS), wherein a high DRS suggests that an article is more likely to be relevant for curation at CTD. We evaluated our process by first text mining a corpus of 14,904 articles triaged for seven heavy metals (cadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel). Based upon initial analysis, a representative subset corpus of 3,583 articles was then selected from the 14,094 articles and sent to five CTD biocurators for review. The resulting curation of these 3,583 articles was analyzed for a variety of parameters, including article relevancy, novel data content, interaction yield rate, mean average precision, and biological and toxicological interpretability. We show that for all measured parameters, the DRS is an effective indicator for scoring and improving the ranking of literature for the curation of chemical-gene-disease information at CTD. Here, we demonstrate how fully incorporating text mining-based DRS scoring into our curation pipeline enhances manual curation by prioritizing more relevant articles, thereby increasing data content, productivity, and efficiency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 107 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 31 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Chemistry 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 27 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#833,174
of 24,241,559 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#11,236
of 208,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,972
of 200,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#230
of 5,144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,241,559 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 208,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 200,880 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,144 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 95% of its contemporaries.