Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Donald Gilbert

dblp:07/7970 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › genome annotation
annotation quality assessment
0.112010
Annotation confidence score for genome annotation: a genome comparison approach · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology
comparative genomics
0.112010
Annotation confidence score for genome annotation: a genome comparison approach · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology
genome annotation
0.112010
Annotation confidence score for genome annotation: a genome comparison approach · Bioinform. 2010
Bioinformatics and computational biology › comparative genomics
genome comparison
0.112010
Annotation confidence score for genome annotation: a genome comparison approach · Bioinform. 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

text similarity · 0.1sequence similarity · 0.1logistic curve · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Annotation confidence score for genome annotation: a genome comparison approach
abstract
MOTIVATION: The massively parallel sequencing technology can be used by small research labs to generate genome sequences of their research interest. However, annotation of genomes still relies on the manual process, which becomes a serious bottleneck to the high-throughput genome projects. Recently, automatic annotation methods are increasingly more accurate, but there are several issues. One important challenge in using automatic annotation methods is to distinguish annotation quality of ORFs or genes. The availability of such annotation quality of genes can reduce the human labor cost dramatically since manual inspection can focus only on genes with low-annotation quality scores. RESULTS: In this article, we propose a novel annotation quality or confidence scoring scheme, called Annotation Confidence Score (ACS), using a genome comparison approach. The scoring scheme is computed by combining sequence and textual annotation similarity using a modified version of a logistic curve. The most important feature of the proposed scoring scheme is to generate a score that reflects the excellence in annotation quality of genes by automatically adjusting the number of genomes used to compute the score and their phylogenetic distance. Extensive experiments with bacterial genomes showed that the proposed scoring scheme generated scores for annotation quality according to the quality of annotation regardless of the number of reference genomes and their phylogenetic distance. AVAILABILITY: http://microbial.informatics.indiana.edu/acs
Youngik Yang, Donald Gilbert, Sun Kim
Bioinform.2