ArticleScientific reports2019
Quantitative evaluation of ontology design patterns for combining pathology and anatomy ontologies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging mouse and human anatomies; a knowledge-based approach to comparative anatomy for disease model phenotyping.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2023Review
- Contribution of model organism phenotypes to the computational identification of human disease genes.Disease models & mechanisms · 2022Article
- Catalyzing Knowledge-Driven Discovery in Environmental Health Sciences through a Community-Driven Harmonized Language.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Analysis of readability and structural accuracy in SNOMED CT.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Formal axioms in biomedical ontologies improve analysis and interpretation of associated data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Quantitative evaluation of ontology design patterns for combining pathology and anatomy ontologies.Scientific reports · 2019Article
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
Abstract
Data are increasingly annotated with multiple ontologies to capture rich information about the features of the subject under investigation. Analysis may be performed over each ontology separately, but recently there has been a move to combine multiple ontologies to provide more powerful analytical possibilities. However, it is often not clear how to combine ontologies or how to assess or evaluate the potential design patterns available. Here we use a large and well-characterized dataset of anatomic pathology descriptions from a major study of aging mice. We show how different design patterns based on the MPATH and MA ontologies provide orthogonal axes of analysis, and perform differently in over-representation and semantic similarity applications. We discuss how such a data-driven approach might be used generally to generate and evaluate ontology design patterns.
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.