of March 2010 and six teams regis tered The teams had five month

of March 2010 and six teams regis tered. The teams had five months to deliver the IAT systems to the UAG for assessment. In the end, all systems provided an interface to enter a PMCID or gene name ID to retrieve a full length article or article list, respectively, with the exception of MyMi ner, which was originally designed for other purposes, but it was of particu lar interest to determine how selleck products suitable this system was under the BioCreative IAT task settings and to under stand which features were important to the IAT users. Table 3 provides an overview of the major features of each participating system. For a more detailed descrip tion see the Methods section below. Assessment of IAT systems To assess the different systems, the UAG prepared a questionnaire related to the interface usability and per formance.

A subset of UAG members conducted the assessment, which was Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries done remotely. The results were collected, compared to the manually annotated set and described during the BC III workshop. Since this was a demonstration task, not a competition, the results pre sented are preliminary and only a guide to evaluate fea sibility of a future interactive Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries challenge. Assessing usability As you operated the system interface, did the overall organization of the web pages appeal to you Figure 1A, question 1 shows that overall organization appealed to most curators. What aspects features about the interface appealed to you the most Three aspects Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries were of common appeal to users, 1 intuitive navigation, 2 highlighting, and 3 easy access to databases, such Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries as UniProt, Entrez Gene and PMC.

What aspects features would you like to see added to this interface Two important features identified from this question were user validation, and highlighting related gene mentions and species to provide Dacomitinib gene species assertion evidence in the context of the full text article. 4. List any aspects features that did not appeal to you. The most common unappealing aspect was species bias, which leads to inaccurate normalization, so for example in the cases analyzed, the system would link a gene mention most often to some mammalian species even when the article did not deal with these organism at all. But even worse was the case where the systems excluded some species alto gether, so it would not be possible to link the gene to its correct identifier using the given system.

Assessing Performance 5. Did the system help you with the gene normalization task Users found that when systems correctly linked a gene mention to the corresponding database identifier, it sped up the curation process. Articles with challen ging normalization examples reduced user satisfaction, Figure 1B, Q5 shows the wide range of the responses. 6. Is the gene ranking www.selleckchem.com/products/lapatinib.html correct As with question 5, in some cases the gene ranking was correct, i. e. the genes with experimen tal characterization ranked higher than those that were mentioned in passing or were just used as markers, but the species were not assigned corr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>