ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006
A case study in pathway knowledgebase verification.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evidence-based approach to identify aging-related genes in Caenorhabditis elegans.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- CSO validator: improving manual curation workflow for biological pathways.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2011Article
- Ontology-based instance data validation for high-quality curated biological pathways.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- The BioPAX community standard for pathway data sharing.Nature biotechnology · 2010Article
- Improving gene expression similarity measurement using pathway-based analytic dimension.BMC genomics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiological databases and pathway knowledge-bases are proliferating rapidly. We are developing software tools for computer-aided hypothesis design and evaluation, and we would like our tools to take advantage of the information stored in these repositories. But before we can reliably use a pathway knowledge-base as a data source, we need to proofread it to ensure that it can fully support computer-aided information integration and inference.
resultsWe design a series of logical tests to detect potential problems we might encounter using a particular knowledge-base, the Reactome database, with a particular computer-aided hypothesis evaluation tool, HyBrow. We develop an explicit formal language from the language implicit in the Reactome data format and specify a logic to evaluate models expressed using this language. We use the formalism of finite model theory in this work. We then use this logic to formulate tests for desirable properties (such as completeness, consistency, and well-formedness) for pathways stored in Reactome. We apply these tests to the publicly available Reactome releases (releases 10 through 14) and compare the results, which highlight Reactome's steady improvement in terms of decreasing inconsistencies. We also investigate and discuss Reactome's potential for supporting computer-aided inference tools.
conclusionThe case study described in this work demonstrates that it is possible to use our model theory based approach to identify problems one might encounter using a knowledge-base to support hypothesis evaluation tools. The methodology we use is general and is in no way restricted to the specific knowledge-base employed in this case study. Future application of this methodology will enable us to compare pathway resources with respect to the generic properties such resources will need to possess if they are to support automated reasoning.
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.