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

William Loging

dblp:04/1427 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—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 · 50% Computational social science and digital humanities · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology
biomedical text mining
0.212013
Quantifying the complexity of medical research · Bioinform. 2013
Computational social science and digital humanities
scientometrics
0.212013
Quantifying the complexity of medical research · Bioinform. 2013

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

text mining · 0.2multi-agent search model · 0.2entropy measures · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 Quantifying the complexity of medical research
abstract
MOTIVATION: A crucial phenomenon of our times is the diminishing marginal returns of investments in pharmaceutical research and development. A potential reason is that research into diseases is becoming increasingly complex, and thus more burdensome, for humans to handle. We sought to investigate whether we could measure research complexity by analyzing the published literature. RESULTS: Through the text mining of the publication record of multiple diseases, we have found that the complexity and novelty of disease research has been increasing over the years. Surprisingly, we have also found that research on diseases with higher publication rate does not possess greater complexity or novelty than that on less-studied diseases. We have also shown that the research produced about a disease can be seen as a differentiated area of knowledge within the wider biomedical research. For our analysis, we have conceptualized disease research as a parallel multi-agent search in which each scientific agent (a scientist) follows a search path based on a model of a disease. We have looked at trends in facts published for diseases, measured their diversity and turnover using the entropy measure and found similar patterns across disease areas. CONTACT: [email protected].
Raul Rodriguez-Esteban, William Loging
Bioinform.2