Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40996702›Full record

ReviewDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2025

A review on Gene Ontology evaluations.

Borja Pitarch, Mónica Chagoyen, Juan A G Ranea, Florencio Pazos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Borja PitarchComputational Systems Biology, National Center for Biotechnology (CNB-CSIC), 28049 Madrid, Spain.
Mónica ChagoyenComputational Systems Biology, National Center for Biotechnology (CNB-CSIC), 28049 Madrid, Spain.
Juan A G RaneaDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain.
Florencio PazosComputational Systems Biology, National Center for Biotechnology (CNB-CSIC), 28049 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2646-6226

Funding

European Regional Development Fund PID2022-140047OB-C21European Regional Development Fund PID2022-140047OB-C22
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The analysis of the large and heterogeneous datasets that characterize modern biology demands systems capable of representing biological knowledge in a formal, standardized manner. The most widely used structured vocabulary in molecular biology and biomedicine is the Gene Ontology (GO). Although employed in many different data analysis tasks, its main application is in the functional annotation of gene products and the subsequent functional enrichment analysis of large gene/protein datasets derived from omics experiments. This key position in modern biology means the GO is subject to continuous scrutiny and improvement, not only by its developers but by the community in general. GO's vocabulary, structure, and gene annotations have been evaluated from multiple points of view, revealing important insights into how we organize our biological knowledge, the associated problems, and strategies for overcoming them. These evaluations range from technical analyses of its ontological architecture to assessments of its effectiveness in supporting biological research. This process ensures that this essential resource is updated and adapted to the new challenges posed by modern biology. In this review, we summarize some key evaluations that the GO has undergone over time.

Indexed as

Gene Ontology

Identifiers

PMID40996702
PMCPMC12462381

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.