an interoperability standard to allow direct comparison of gene normalization selleck chemical Nutlin-3a algorithms Performance and usability are distinct yet equally impor tant aspects of the interactive task. In the demonstration task, it was difficult to separate the two. The systems differed Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries in their proposed gene identifiers, which dis tracted curators from commenting on the curation Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries fea tures themselves.If systems were sufficiently interoperable such that they could make use of any number of gene normalization modules, it would be tri vial to eliminate user bias based on differences in gene normalization performance, allowing curators to focus on usability. Reassess the document retrieval task The demonstration task required that systems provide the ability to enter a gene synonym and retrieve papers that mention it ranked by centrality.

We propose reas sessing how this feature is incorporated for several rea sons. First, although this functionality as originally conceived was intended to retrieve relevant articles for a given gene that may be of significance for the curator, it may not fit in the real curation workflow. Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries Many data bases have their own triage process to retrieve the arti cles to curate, and this process may be uncoupled from the curators activity. Second, centrality proved to be challenging to define for the retrieval task, making it difficult to evaluate sys tems retrieval performance consistently. Lastly, informa tion retrieval and document ranking involve different algorithms than gene normalization.

Inhibitors,Modulators,Libraries We suggest further discussions with a broad Drug_discovery base of biocurators about rea listic applications of a document retrieval task and how they fit with typical curation workflows. Set evaluation metrics User interface evaluation is a field of study unto itself and UAG members had no formal expertise in this area. In order to transform the Interactive Task from a demonstration task to a challenge task, we recommend bringing in usability evaluation experts to more effec tively communicate the specification expectations and judgement criteria prior to the challenge. For instance, we did not explore recording software to capture mouse clicks and navigation within and outside systems. Presumably, a self contained system that aids ambiguity resolution without having to navigate to other sites will result in speedier curation.

We would like to explore how tracking software could selleck chemicals be converted into quantita tive data by which system performance can be measured and compared. Finally, we have not discussed novelty as an exploita ble curation feature. Clearly, a system that can compare findings from incoming documents to existing curation and prioritize the documents that have new findings will be of great utility. During UAG discussions, database representatives voiced the need for a system that could compare the content of an article in the curation queue to existing database content and highlight articles that contained missing information. Determining the feasibil it