ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2013
Predicting clicks of PubMed articles.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predicting the popularity or access usage of an article has the potential to improve the quality of PubMed searches. We can model the click trend of each article as its access changes over time by mining the PubMed query logs, which contain the previous access history for all articles. In this article, we examine the access patterns produced by PubMed users in two years (July 2009 to July 2011). We explore the time series of accesses for each article in the query logs, model the trends with regression approaches, and subsequently use the models for prediction. We show that the click trends of PubMed articles are best fitted with a log-normal regression model. This model allows the number of accesses an article receives and the time since it first becomes available in PubMed to be related via quadratic and logistic functions, with the model parameters to be estimated via maximum likelihood. Our experiments predicting the number of accesses for an article based on its past usage demonstrate that the mean absolute error and mean absolute percentage error of our model are 4.0% and 8.1% lower than the power-law regression model, respectively. The log-normal distribution is also shown to perform significantly better than a previous prediction method based on a human memory theory in cognitive science. This work warrants further investigation on the utility of such a log-normal regression approach towards improving information access in PubMed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24551386PMC3900227What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.