ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2004
Terminological mapping for high throughput comparative biology of phenotypes.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2004. 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.
- Homolonto: generating homology relationships by pairwise alignment of ontologies and application to vertebrate anatomy.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2010Article
- PhenoHM: human-mouse comparative phenome-genome server.Nucleic acids research · 2010Article
- Integration of Neuroimaging and Microarray Datasets through Mapping and Model-Theoretic Semantic Decomposition of Unstructured Phenotypes.Cancer informatics · 2009Article
- Integration of Neuroimaging and Microarray Datasets through Mapping and Model-Theoretic Semantic Decomposition of Unstructured Phenotypes.Summit on translational bioinformatics · 2009Article
- PhenoGO: an integrated resource for the multiscale mining of clinical and biological data.BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
- Mapping proteins to disease terminologies: from UniProt to MeSH.BMC bioinformatics · 2008Article
- Biomedical ontologies in action: role in knowledge management, data integration and decision support.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2008Article
- Mapping the categories of the Swedish primary health care version of ICD-10 to SNOMED CT concepts: rule development and intercoder reliability in a mapping trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2007Article
- Computational approaches to phenotyping: high-throughput phenomics.Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society · 2007Review
- An integrative genomic approach to uncover molecular mechanisms of prokaryotic traits.PLoS computational biology · 2006Article
- Article
- PhenoGO: assigning phenotypic context to gene ontology annotations with natural language processing.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2006Article
- Visualizing information across multidimensional post-genomic structured and textual databases.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2005Article
- Standards and ontologies for functional genomics 2.Comparative and functional genomics · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Comparative biological studies have led to remarkable biomedical discoveries. While genomic science and technologies are advancing rapidly, our ability to precisely specify a phenotype and compare it to related phenotypes of other organisms remains challenging. This study has examined the systematic use of terminology and knowledge based technologies to enable high-throughput comparative phenomics. More specifically, we measured the accuracy of a multi-strategy automated classification method to bridge the phenotype gap between a phenotypic terminology (MGD: Phenoslim) and a broad-coverage clinical terminology (SNOMED CT). Furthermore, we qualitatively evaluate the additional emerging properties of the combined terminological network for comparative biology and discovery science. According to the gold standard (n = 100), the accuracies (precision / recall) of the composite automated methods were 67% / 97% (mapping for identical concepts) and 85% / 98% (classification). Quantitatively, only 2% of the phenotypic concepts were missing from the clinical terminology, however, qualitatively the gap was larger: conceptual scope, granularity and subtle yet significant, homonymy problems were observed. These results suggest that, as observed in other domains, additional strategies are required for combining terminologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.