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 |
Text Mining for Literature Review and Knowledge Discovery in Cancer Risk Assessment and Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0033427 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Korhonen, Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha, Ilona Silins, Lin Sun, Johan Högberg, Ulla Stenius |
| Abstract |
Research in biomedical text mining is starting to produce technology which can make information in biomedical literature more accessible for bio-scientists. One of the current challenges is to integrate and refine this technology to support real-life scientific tasks in biomedicine, and to evaluate its usefulness in the context of such tasks. We describe CRAB - a fully integrated text mining tool designed to support chemical health risk assessment. This task is complex and time-consuming, requiring a thorough review of existing scientific data on a particular chemical. Covering human, animal, cellular and other mechanistic data from various fields of biomedicine, this is highly varied and therefore difficult to harvest from literature databases via manual means. Our tool automates the process by extracting relevant scientific data in published literature and classifying it according to multiple qualitative dimensions. Developed in close collaboration with risk assessors, the tool allows navigating the classified dataset in various ways and sharing the data with other users. We present a direct and user-based evaluation which shows that the technology integrated in the tool is highly accurate, and report a number of case studies which demonstrate how the tool can be used to support scientific discovery in cancer risk assessment and research. Our work demonstrates the usefulness of a text mining pipeline in facilitating complex research tasks in biomedicine. We discuss further development and application of our technology to other types of chemical risk assessment in the future. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 States | 5 | 56% |
| India | 1 | 11% |
| Sweden | 1 | 11% |
| Japan | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 127 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 35 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 29 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 October 2015.
All research outputs
#6,384,932
of 25,252,667 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#90,326
of 219,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,415
of 167,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,051
of 3,749 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,252,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 167,289 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,749 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 71% of its contemporaries.