Metrics Based Quality Assessment for Retrieval Ability of Web-Based Bioinformatics Tools

  • Jayanthi Manicassamy
  • P. Dhavachelvan
  • R. Baskaran
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 166)

Abstract

Today, there is need for share and building resources that could be made available around the world any where, at any time. This made the necessity of web for which the usage and utilization depends on those who set these resources for sharing globally. Web based tool with the conceptual view of resource sharing it could be a classification of tool that only extracts resources from the web, like extraction of informatics from the database that would require which would be a thousand of thousands of object entities that would relay on this real world for which the resource is left for sharing globally. Bioinformatics tools aims at the same which is used for solving real world problems using DNA and amino acid sequences and related information using mathematical, statistical and computing methods. Mostly of the tools of this area are web-based since biological resources are real entity that should be kept updated based on the researches that requires vast space. Tools build in this area could not be build by one databases so, database like NCBI, PDB, EMBDL, Medline etc…have been developed to share its resources. At present development of bioinformatics tools are tremendously increasingly for real-time decision making for which it is vital to evaluate the performance of the tool by means of retrieval ability. Since mostly tools are web-based that utilizes various databases for information retrieval or mining information’s it is vital for evaluating the retrieval ability along with error report of the tools for performance based quality assessment. Metrics is a measure that qualifies the characteristics of a product in numerical data that have being observed. In this paper few web-based bioinformatics tools have been taken, that retrieves documents from PubMed database for which the tools performances have been evaluated by quantitative means through metrics. Selective metrics that have been used are Information retrieval, error report, F-measure etc…for performance evaluation for which detailed result analysis have been narrated. From the observation made from the analyzed results on the tools will help to provide a guideline for developing better tools or selecting better tool for better decision making with enhanced qualities.

Index Terms

Bioinformatics Databases Information Retrieval Performance Evaluation Software Metrics Web-Based 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Witte, R., Baker, C.J.: Towards A Systematic Evaluation of Protein Mutation Extraction Systems. Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (JBCB) 1(6), 1339–1359 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vengattaraman, T., Abiramy, S., Dhavachelvan, P., Baskaran, R.: An Application Perspective Evaluation of Multi-Agent System in Versatile Environments. International Journal on Expert Systems with Applications 38(3), 1405–1416 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manicassamy, J., Dhavachelvan, P.: Automating diseases diagnosis in human: A Time Series Analysis. In: Proceedings of International Conference and Workshop on Emerging Trends in Technology (ICWET 2010), pp. 798–800 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manicassamy, J., Dhavachelvan, P.: Metrics Based Performance control Over Text Mining Tools in Bio-Informatics. In: ACM International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Control, ICAC3 2009, pp. 171–176 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Venkatesan, S., Dhavachelvan, P., Chellapan, C.: Performance analysis of mobile agent failure recovery in e-service applications. International Journal of Computer Standards and Interfaces 32(1-2), 38–43 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dhavachelvan, P., Uma, G.V., Venkatachalapathy, V.S.K.: A New Approach in Development of Distributed Framework for Automated Software Testing Using Agents. International Journal on Knowledge –Based Systems 19(4), 235–247 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dhavachelvan, P., Uma, G.V.: Complexity Measures For Software Systems: Towards Multi-Agent Based Software Testing. In: Proceedings - 2005 International Conference on Intelligent Sensing and Information Processing, ICISIP 2005, pp. 359–364, Art. no. 1529476 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dhavachelvan, P., Uma, G.V.: Reliability Enhancement in Software Testing – An Agent-Based Approach for Complex Systems. In: Das, G., Gulati, V.P. (eds.) CIT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3356, pp. 282–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dhavachelvan, P., Uma, G.V.: Multi-agent Based Integrated Framework for Intra-class Testing of Object-Oriented Software. In: Yazıcı, A., Şener, C. (eds.) ISCIS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2869, pp. 992–999. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Victer Paul, P., Saravanan, N., Jayakumar, S.K.V., Dhavachelvan, P., Baskaran, R.: QoS enhancements for global replication management in peer to peer networks. Future Generation Computer Systems 28(3), 573–582 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Victer Paul, P., Vengattaraman, T., Dhavachelvan, P.: Improving efficiency of Peer Network Applications by formulating Distributed Spanning Tree. In: Proceedings - 3rd International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology, ICETET 2010, pp. 813–818, Art. no. 5698439 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oberto, J.: BAGET: a web server for the effortless retrieval of prokaryotic gene context and sequence. ACM Portal, 424–425 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falchi, M., Fuchsberger, C.: Jenti: an efficient tool for mining complex inbred genealogies. Bioinformatics Oxford Journal 24(5), 724–726 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sabou, M., Wroe, C., Goble, C., Mishne, G.: Learning domain ontologies for web service descriptions: An experiment in bioinformatics, citeseer (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuemie, M.J., Kors, J.A.: Jane: suggesting journals, finding experts. Oxford Journal, 727–728 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu, W., Clyne, M., Dolan, S.M., Yesupriya, A., Wulf, A., Liu, T., Khoury, M.J., Gwinn, M.: GAPscreener: An automatic tool for screening human genetic association literature in PubMed using the support vector machine technique. BMC Bioinformatics 9(1), 205 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smalheiser, N.R., Zhou, W., Torvik, V.I.: Anne O’Tate: A tool to support user-driven summarization, drill-down and browsing of PubMed search results. Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration 3(2) (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    States, D.J., Ade, A.S., Wright, Z.C., Bookvich, A.V., Athey, B.D.: MiSearch adaptive pubMed search tool. Bioinformatics Oxford Journal, 974–976 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dai, H.-J., Huang, C.-H., Lin, R.T.K., Tsai, R.T.-H., Hsu, W.-L.: BIOSMILE web search: a web application for annotating biomedical entities and relations. Nucleic Acids Research, W390–W398 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsai, R.T.-H., Wu, S.-H., Chou, W.-C., Lin, Y.-C., He, D., Hsiang, J., Sung, T.-Y., Hsu, W.-L.: Various criteria in the evaluation of biomedical named entity recognition. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 92 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saleem Basha, M.S., Dhavachelvan, P.: Web Service Based Secure E-Learning Management System - EWeMS. International Journal of Convergence Information Technology 5(7), 57–69 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hearst, M.A., Divoli, A., Guturu, H., Ksikes, A., Nakov, P., Wooldridge, M.A., Ye, J.: BioText Search Engine: beyond abstract search. ACM Portal, 2196–2197 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jayanthi Manicassamy
    • 1
  • P. Dhavachelvan
    • 1
  • R. Baskaran
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencePondicherry UniversityPondicherryIndia
  2. 2.Department of CSE.Anna UniversityChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations