Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30576485›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2018

Annotation of phenotypes using ontologies: a gold standard for the training and evaluation of natural language processing systems.

Wasila Dahdul, Prashanti Manda, Hong Cui, James P Balhoff, T Alexander Dececchi, Nizar Ibrahim, Hilmar Lapp, Todd Vision, Paula M Mabee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Large Language Models in Bio-Ontology Research: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Wasila DahdulUniversity of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA.
Prashanti MandaUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA.
Hong CuiUniversity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
James P BalhoffUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
T Alexander DececchiUniversity of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA.
Nizar IbrahimUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Hilmar LappDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Todd VisionUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Paula M MabeeUniversity of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural language descriptions of organismal phenotypes, a principal object of study in biology, are abundant in the biological literature. Expressing these phenotypes as logical statements using ontologies would enable large-scale analysis on phenotypic information from diverse systems. However, considerable human effort is required to make these phenotype descriptions amenable to machine reasoning. Natural language processing tools have been developed to facilitate this task, and the training and evaluation of these tools depend on the availability of high quality, manually annotated gold standard data sets. We describe the development of an expert-curated gold standard data set of annotated phenotypes for evolutionary biology. The gold standard was developed for the curation of complex comparative phenotypes for the Phenoscape project. It was created by consensus among three curators and consists of entity-quality expressions of varying complexity. We use the gold standard to evaluate annotations created by human curators and those generated by the Semantic CharaParser tool. Using four annotation accuracy metrics that can account for any level of relationship between terms from two phenotype annotations, we found that machine-human consistency, or similarity, was significantly lower than inter-curator (human-human) consistency. Surprisingly, allowing curatorsaccess to external information did not significantly increase the similarity of their annotations to the gold standard or have a significant effect on inter-curator consistency. We found that the similarity of machine annotations to the gold standard increased after new relevant ontology terms had been added. Evaluation by the original authors of the character descriptions indicated that the gold standard annotations came closer to representing their intended meaning than did either the curator or machine annotations. These findings point toward ways to better design software to augment human curators and the use of the gold standard corpus will allow training and assessment of new tools to improve phenotype annotation accuracy at scale.

Indexed as

Gene OntologyNatural Language ProcessingPhenotypeData CurationData MiningHumans

Identifiers

PMID30576485
PMCPMC6301375

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.