
Abstract Manually annotated data is key to developing text-mining and information-extraction algorithms. However, human annotation requires considerable time, effort and expertise. Given the rapid growth of biomedical literature, it is paramount to build tools that facilitate speed and maintain expert quality. While existing text annotation tools may provide user-friendly interfaces to domain experts, limited support is available for figure display, project management, and multi-user team annotation. In response, we developed TeamTat (https://www.teamtat.org), a web-based annotation tool (local setup available), equipped to manage team annotation projects engagingly and efficiently. TeamTat is a novel tool for managing multi-user, multi-label document annotation, reflecting the entire production life cycle. Project managers can specify annotation schema for entities and relations and select annotator(s) and distribute documents anonymously to prevent bias. Document input format can be plain text, PDF or BioC (uploaded locally or automatically retrieved from PubMed/PMC), and output format is BioC with inline annotations. TeamTat displays figures from the full text for the annotator's convenience. Multiple users can work on the same document independently in their workspaces, and the team manager can track task completion. TeamTat provides corpus quality assessment via inter-annotator agreement statistics, and a user-friendly interface convenient for annotation review and inter-annotator disagreement resolution to improve corpus quality.
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Human-Computer Interaction, Data Mining, Cooperative Behavior, Software, Information Retrieval (cs.IR), Computer Science - Information Retrieval, Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Human-Computer Interaction, Data Mining, Cooperative Behavior, Software, Information Retrieval (cs.IR), Computer Science - Information Retrieval, Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 60 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
