Comments on: Many Eyes and literature summary

By: Useful health websites : Womens Health

Useful health websites : Womens Health — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:42:22 +0000

[...] Many Eyes and literature summary [...]

By: Pawel Szczesny

Pawel Szczesny — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:27:19 +0000

Hilary, sorry, I’ve just noticed your request. Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with a link, since the data were deleted from ManyEyes just after writing this post. It’s because I didn’t want to run into licensing issues using abstracts of articles from non-OA journals.

By: Richard Karpinski

Richard Karpinski — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:15:55 +0000

Nice. Put what you did on a wiki and let others turn it into a script which captures an arbitrary search (even other than Pub Med) and dumps it into Many Eyes along with a key word in such a way that this presentation is created. Other people can process search results into other kinds of presentations, too.

The referenced articles themselves can also be put into other useful arrangements. I’d be interested in pushing an article into the Question, Answers, and arguments PRO and CON form, which takes more work than with Many Eyes since you have to identify the answers and arguments. Even worse, you often have to construct the question using imagination and a careful reading of the text. Still, having the question clarifies the answer amazingly for the reader.

By: Hilary

Hilary — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:54:37 +0000

I really like this visualization, however, I wish I could play around with it a bit more… can you provide a link to the version on the Many Eyes site?

By: Pawel Szczesny

Pawel Szczesny — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:15:39 +0000

Deepak, I of course agree – we didn’t yet explored most of the possible ways of visualizing data in biosciences. My feeling is that with a proper tool that helps to wrap one’s brain around the problem, we could advance science much faster than it is possible now.

Dennis, if I understood you correctly, I agree, it would perform better – if we had structured source text. Much of scientific literature abstracts has zero metadata assigned, no to mention any structure of the text. In many cases (when ontologies for particular part of biology are well built) we can mine it and make it somehow semi-structured, but there are areas almost without semantic descriptors.

By: Dennis D. McDonald

Dennis D. McDonald — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:53:17 +0000

You state “…such approach works much better for entities that aren’t well described in biological ontologies.” Wouldn’t source text built according to structured rules actually perform better, especially if the volume of text is high?

By: Blogging about blogging : business|bytes|genes|molecules

Blogging about blogging : business|bytes|genes|molecules — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 06:22:46 +0000

[...] or publishing news about your products, and increasingly the modern op-ed. You can write about visualization of publications, add additional analysis to a paper, introduce people in your team, or talk about your mission [...]

By: Rafael Sidi

Rafael Sidi — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:42:12 +0000

I second Deepak. This is nice and building these kind of representation should not be difficult using APIs.

By: Deepak

Deepak — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:32:31 +0000

That’s very neat. I hear you. We could do a lot better with visualization/representation of semi-structured data. Perhaps the folks at pubmed, or gopubmed could do something like that using one of the available APIs. Shouldn’t be that hard