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.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Note-Level Phenotyping of Multiple-Sclerosis Notes by a Large Language Model Achieves near Human-Level Agreement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Bio-Ontology Research: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Helping authors produce FAIR taxonomic data: evaluation of an author-driven phenotype data production prototype.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Computable species descriptions and nanopublications: applying ontology-based technologies to dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeinae).Biodiversity data journal · 2024Article
- Authors' attitude toward adopting a new workflow to improve the computability of phenotype publications.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
- FAIR data representation in times of eScience: a comparison of instance-based and class-based semantic representations of empirical data using phenotype descriptions as example.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2021Article
- Which methods are the most effective in enabling novice users to participate in ontology creation? A usability study.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2021Article
- Challenges for FAIR-compliant description and comparison of crop phenotype data with standardized controlled vocabularies.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2021Article
- Measurement Recorder: developing a useful tool for making species descriptions that produces computable phenotypes.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- Craniodental and Postcranial Characters of Non-Avian Dinosauria Often Imply Different Trees.Systematic biology · 2020Article
- Automated Methods Enable Direct Computation on Phenotypic Descriptions for Novel Candidate Gene Prediction.Frontiers in plant science · 2019Article
- Modifier Ontologies for frequency, certainty, degree, and coverage phenotype modifier.Biodiversity data journal · 2018Article
- Incentivising use of structured language in biological descriptions: Author-driven phenotype data and ontology production.Biodiversity data journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.