NameClarifier: A Visual Analytics System for Author Name Disambiguation

Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Data Mining

Understanding published unstructured textual data using traditional text mining approaches and tools is becoming a challenging issue due to the rapid increase in electronic open-source publications. The application of data mining techniques in the medical sciences is an emerging trend; however, traditional text-mining approaches are insufficient to cope with the current upsurge in the volume of published data. Therefore, artificial intelligence-based text mining tools are being developed and used to process large volumes of data and to explore the hidden features and correlations in the data. This review provides a clear-cut and insightful understanding of how artificial intelligence-based data-mining technology is being used to analyze medical data. We also describe a standard process of data mining based on CRISP-DM (Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining) and the most common tools/libraries available for each step of medical data mining.

Multilingual author matching across different academic databases: a case study on KAKEN, DBLP, and PubMed

Researchers often use their native languages to present and exchange ideas. To construct an individual author’s complete profile, a list of their English and non-English academic publications must be constructed. This paper presents a practical approach for multilingual author matching across different academic databases. Our approach automatically links the academic records of a target database to a researcher identifier of a source database. First, we extracted a comprehensive set of records in the target database, whose author names were identical to the researcher names in the source database. Then, we calculated multiple author similarity measures, which can be adopted in certain entity pairs from different language databases. Finally, we aggregated the measures to output an improved score that indicates the likelihood of each record as being the researcher’s work. Our method was found to be easy to implement, and its performance was evaluated in real database management settings. Experiments were conducted using DBLP and PubMed as the target English databases. As the Japanese database, KAKEN was the source for identifying researcher information. The results demonstrated each similarity measure’s performance, from which we observed that the score aggregation achieved stable performance. Our method can lessen human efforts to associate various scholarly contributions.

Strong Baselines for Author Name Disambiguation with and Without Neural Networks

Author name disambiguation (AND) is one of the most vital problems in scientometrics, which has become a great challenge with the rapid growth of academic digital libraries. Existing approaches for this task substantially rely on complex clustering-like architectures, and they usually assume the number of clusters is known beforehand or predict the number by applying another model, which involve increasingly complex and time-consuming architectures. In this paper, we combine simple neural networks with two sets of heuristic rules to explore strong baselines for the author name disambiguation problem without any priori knowledge or estimation about cluster size, which frees the model from unnecessary complexity. On a popular benchmark dataset AMiner, our solution significantly outperforms several state-of-the-art methods both in performance and efficiency, and it still achieves comparable performance with many complex models when only using a group of rules. Experimental results also indicate that gains from sophisticated deep learning techniques are quite modest in the author name disambiguation problem.

A review of author name disambiguation techniques for the PubMed bibliographic database

Author names in bibliographic databases often suffer from ambiguity owing to the same author appearing under different names and multiple authors possessing similar names. It creates difficulty in associating a scholarly work with the person who wrote it, thereby introducing inaccuracy in credit attribution, bibliometric analysis, search-by-author in a digital library and expert discovery. A plethora of techniques for disambiguation of author names has been proposed in the literature. In this article, we focus on the research efforts targeted to disambiguate author names specifically in the PubMed bibliographic database. We believe this concentrated review will be useful to the research community because it discusses techniques applied to a very large real database that is actively used worldwide. We make a comprehensive survey of the existing author name disambiguation (AND) approaches that have been applied to the PubMed database: we organise the approaches into a taxonomy; describe the major characteristics of each approach including its performance, strengths, and limitations; and perform a comparative analysis of them. We also identify the datasets from PubMed that are publicly available for researchers to evaluate AND algorithms. Finally, we outline a few directions for future work.

Bridging Text Visualization and Mining: A Task-Driven Survey

Visual text analytics has recently emerged as one of the most prominent topics in both academic research and the commercial world. To provide an overview of the relevant techniques and analysis tasks, as well as the relationships between them, we comprehensively analyzed 263 visualization papers and 4,346 mining papers published between 1992-2017 in two fields: visualization and text mining. From the analysis, we derived around 300 concepts (visualization techniques, mining techniques, and analysis tasks) and built a taxonomy for each type of concept. The co-occurrence relationships between the concepts were also extracted. Our research can be used as a stepping-stone for other researchers to 1) understand a common set of concepts used in this research topic; 2) facilitate the exploration of the relationships between visualization techniques, mining techniques, and analysis tasks; 3) understand the current practice in developing visual text analytics tools; 4) seek potential research opportunities by narrowing the gulf between visualization and mining techniques based on the analysis tasks; and 5) analyze other interdisciplinary research areas in a similar way. We have also contributed a web-based visualization tool for analyzing and understanding research trends and opportunities in visual text analytics.

DISC: Disambiguating homonyms using graph structural clustering

Author name ambiguity degrades information retrieval, database integration, search results and, more importantly, correct attributions in bibliographic databases. Some unresolved issues include how to ascertain the actual number of authors, how to improve the performance and how to make the method more effective in terms of representative clustering metrics (average cluster purity, average author purity, K-metric, pairwise precision, pairwise recall, pairwise-F1, cluster precision, cluster recall and cluster-F1). It is a non-trivial task to disambiguate authors using only the implicit bibliographic information. An effective method ‘DISC’ is proposed that uses graph community detection algorithm, feature vectors and graph operations to disambiguate homonyms. The citation data set is pre-processed and ambiguous author blocks are formed. A co-authors graph is constructed using authors and their co-author’s relationships. A graph structural clustering ‘gSkeletonClu’ is applied to identify hubs, outliers and clusters of nodes in a co-author’s graph. Homonyms are resolved by splitting these clusters of nodes across the hub if their feature vector similarity is less than a predefined threshold. DISC utilises only co-authors and titles that are available in almost all bibliographic databases. With little modifications, DISC can also be used for entity disambiguation. To validate the DISC performance, experiments are performed on two Arnetminer data sets and compared with five previous unsupervised methods. Despite using limited bibliographic metadata, DISC achieves on average K-metric, pairwise-F1, and cluster-F1 of 92%, 84% and 74%, respectively, using Arnetminer-S and 86%, 80% and 57%, respectively, using Arnetminer-L. About 77.5% and 73.2% clusters are within the range (ground truth clusters ± 3) in Arnetminer-S and Arnetminer-L, respectively.