↓ Skip to main content

Chapter 16: Text Mining for Translational Bioinformatics

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, April 2013
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
Chapter 16: Text Mining for Translational Bioinformatics
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003044
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Bretonnel Cohen, Lawrence E. Hunter

Abstract

Text mining for translational bioinformatics is a new field with tremendous research potential. It is a subfield of biomedical natural language processing that concerns itself directly with the problem of relating basic biomedical research to clinical practice, and vice versa. Applications of text mining fall both into the category of T1 translational research-translating basic science results into new interventions-and T2 translational research, or translational research for public health. Potential use cases include better phenotyping of research subjects, and pharmacogenomic research. A variety of methods for evaluating text mining applications exist, including corpora, structured test suites, and post hoc judging. Two basic principles of linguistic structure are relevant for building text mining applications. One is that linguistic structure consists of multiple levels. The other is that every level of linguistic structure is characterized by ambiguity. There are two basic approaches to text mining: rule-based, also known as knowledge-based; and machine-learning-based, also known as statistical. Many systems are hybrids of the two approaches. Shared tasks have had a strong effect on the direction of the field. Like all translational bioinformatics software, text mining software for translational bioinformatics can be considered health-critical and should be subject to the strictest standards of quality assurance and software testing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 3%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 242 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 21%
Researcher 51 19%
Student > Master 43 16%
Other 15 6%
Professor 14 5%
Other 55 21%
Unknown 28 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 24%
Computer Science 50 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 13%
Engineering 8 3%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 34 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 May 2022.
All research outputs
#3,026,355
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#2,685
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,740
of 205,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#25
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 205,935 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.