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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Natural Language Processing in aid of FlyBase curators
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-9-193 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nikiforos Karamanis, Ruth Seal, Ian Lewin, Peter McQuilton, Andreas Vlachos, Caroline Gasperin, Rachel Drysdale, Ted Briscoe |
| Abstract |
Despite increasing interest in applying Natural Language Processing (NLP) to biomedical text, whether this technology can facilitate tasks such as database curation remains unclear. PaperBrowser is the first NLP-powered interface that was developed under a user-centered approach to improve the way in which FlyBase curators navigate an article. In this paper, we first discuss how observing curators at work informed the design and evaluation of PaperBrowser. Then, we present how we appraise PaperBrowser's navigational functionalities in a user-based study using a text highlighting task and evaluation criteria of Human-Computer Interaction. Our results show that PaperBrowser reduces the amount of interactions between two highlighting events and therefore improves navigational efficiency by about 58% compared to the navigational mechanism that was previously available to the curators. Moreover, PaperBrowser is shown to provide curators with enhanced navigational utility by over 74% irrespective of the different ways in which they highlight text in the article. We show that state-of-the-art performance in certain NLP tasks such as Named Entity Recognition and Anaphora Resolution can be combined with the navigational functionalities of PaperBrowser to support curation quite successfully. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 5% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Malta | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 50 | 65% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 36% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 31 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 6% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,143,189
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,707
of 7,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,883
of 81,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#37
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 81,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.