↓ Skip to main content

Chemical named entities recognition: a review on approaches and applications

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 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
Chemical named entities recognition: a review on approaches and applications
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1758-2946-6-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Safaa Eltyeb, Naomie Salim

Abstract

The rapid increase in the flow rate of published digital information in all disciplines has resulted in a pressing need for techniques that can simplify the use of this information. The chemistry literature is very rich with information about chemical entities. Extracting molecules and their related properties and activities from the scientific literature to "text mine" these extracted data and determine contextual relationships helps research scientists, particularly those in drug development. One of the most important challenges in chemical text mining is the recognition of chemical entities mentioned in the texts. In this review, the authors briefly introduce the fundamental concepts of chemical literature mining, the textual contents of chemical documents, and the methods of naming chemicals in documents. We sketch out dictionary-based, rule-based and machine learning, as well as hybrid chemical named entity recognition approaches with their applied solutions. We end with an outlook on the pros and cons of these approaches and the types of chemical entities extracted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
New Caledonia 1 <1%
Unknown 177 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 25%
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Master 24 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Other 10 5%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 30 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 57 31%
Chemistry 15 8%
Materials Science 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 45 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,300,431
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#746
of 828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,357
of 227,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#21
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 227,643 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.