ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2015
Moving the mountain: analysis of the effort required to transform comparative anatomy into computable anatomy.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Models in Bio-Ontology Research: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Gated Recurrent Unit based architecture for recognizing ontology concepts from biological literature.BioData mining · 2022Article
- Authors' attitude toward adopting a new workflow to improve the computability of phenotype publications.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
- CTD Anatomy: analyzing chemical-induced phenotypes and exposures from an anatomical perspective, with implications for environmental health studies.Current research in toxicology · 2021Article
- STOREFISH 2.0: a database on the reproductive strategies of teleost fishes.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- Measurement Recorder: developing a useful tool for making species descriptions that produces computable phenotypes.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- Transforming the study of organisms: Phenomic data models and knowledge bases.PLoS computational biology · 2020Review
- Automated Integration of Trees and Traits: A Case Study Using Paired Fin Loss Across Teleost Fishes.Systematic biology · 2018Article
- Incentivising use of structured language in biological descriptions: Author-driven phenotype data and ontology production.Biodiversity data journal · 2018Article
- Annotation of phenotypes using ontologies: a gold standard for the training and evaluation of natural language processing systems.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2018Article
- Data Sources for Trait Databases: Comparing the Phenomic Content of Monographs and Evolutionary Matrices.PloS one · 2016Article
- Muscle Logic: New Knowledge Resource for Anatomy Enables Comprehensive Searches of the Literature on the Feeding Muscles of Mammals.PloS one · 2016Article
- Toward Synthesizing Our Knowledge of Morphology: Using Ontologies and Machine Reasoning to Extract Presence/Absence Evolutionary Phenotypes across Studies.Systematic biology · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diverse phenotypes of living organisms have been described for centuries, and though they may be digitized, they are not readily available in a computable form. Using over 100 morphological studies, the Phenoscape project has demonstrated that by annotating characters with community ontology terms, links between novel species anatomy and the genes that may underlie them can be made. But given the enormity of the legacy literature, how can this largely unexploited wealth of descriptive data be rendered amenable to large-scale computation? To identify the bottlenecks, we quantified the time involved in the major aspects of phenotype curation as we annotated characters from the vertebrate phylogenetic systematics literature. This involves attaching fully computable logical expressions consisting of ontology terms to the descriptions in character-by-taxon matrices. The workflow consists of: (i) data preparation, (ii) phenotype annotation, (iii) ontology development and (iv) curation team discussions and software development feedback. Our results showed that the completion of this work required two person-years by a team of two post-docs, a lead data curator, and students. Manual data preparation required close to 13% of the effort. This part in particular could be reduced substantially with better community data practices, such as depositing fully populated matrices in public repositories. Phenotype annotation required ∼40% of the effort. We are working to make this more efficient with Natural Language Processing tools. Ontology development (40%), however, remains a highly manual task requiring domain (anatomical) expertise and use of specialized software. The large overhead required for data preparation and ontology development contributed to a low annotation rate of approximately two characters per hour, compared with 14 characters per hour when activity was restricted to character annotation. Unlocking the potential of the vast stores of morphological descriptions requires better tools for efficiently processing natural language, and better community practices towards a born-digital morphology. Database URL: http://kb.phenoscape.org
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.