Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15679867›Full record

ReviewJournal of anatomy2005

Anatomics: the intersection of anatomy and bioinformatics.

Jonathan B L Bard

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anatomy, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2023
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An ontology for Xenopus anatomy and development.BMC developmental biology · 2008
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Systems developmental biology: the use of ontologies in annotating models and in identifying gene function within and across species.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2007
    Review
  10. Experience in Aligning Anatomical Ontologies.International journal on Semantic Web and information systems · 2007
    Article
  11. Article
  12. A high-resolution anatomical rat atlas.Journal of anatomy · 2006
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Of mice and men: aligning mouse and human anatomies.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2005
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan B L BardDivision of Biomedical Science, University of Edinburgh, UK. j.bard@ed.ac.uk
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational resources are now using the tissue names of the major model organisms so that tissue-associated data can be archived in and retrieved from databases on the basis of developing and adult anatomy. For this to be done, the set of tissues in that organism (its anatome) has to be organized in a way that is computer-comprehensible. Indeed, such formalization is a necessary part of what is becoming known as systems biology, in which explanations of high-level biological phenomena are not only sought in terms of lower-level events, but are articulated within a computational framework. Lists of tissue names alone, however, turn out to be inadequate for this formalization because tissue organization is essentially hierarchical and thus cannot easily be put into tables, the natural format of relational databases. The solution now adopted is to organize the anatomy of each organism as a hierarchy of tissue names and linking relationships (e.g. the tibia is PART OF the leg, the tibia IS-A bone) within what are known as ontologies. In these, a unique ID is assigned to each tissue and this can be used within, for example, gene-expression databases to link data to tissue organization, and also used to query other data sources (interoperability), while inferences about the anatomy can be made within the ontology on the basis of the relationships. There are now about 15 such anatomical ontologies, many of which are linked to organism databases; these ontologies are now publicly available at the Open Biological Ontologies website (http://obo.sourceforge.net) from where they can be freely downloaded and viewed using standard tools. This review considers how anatomy is formalized within ontologies, together with the problems that have had to be solved for this to be done. It is suggested that the appropriate term for the analysis, computer formulation and use of the anatome is anatomics.

Indexed as

AnatomyComputational BiologyAdultAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansDatabases, FactualDrosophilaHumansMiceSoftwareSystems Biology

Identifiers

PMID15679867
PMCPMC1571451
OpenAlexW2065196574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.