ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2007
Identifying mismatches in alignments of large anatomical ontologies.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation in the representation of human anatomy within digital resources: Implications for data integration.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Experiences from the anatomy track in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2017Review
- An analysis of FMA using structural self-bisimilarity.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2013Article
- Identifying Granularity Differences between Large Biomedical Ontologies through Rules.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2010Article
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
unlabelledThe objective of this study is to propose a model of matching errors for identifying mismatches in alignments of large anatomical ontologies. Meth-ods: Three approaches to identifying mismatches are utilized: 1) lexical, based on the presence of modifiers in the names of the concepts aligned; 2) structural, identifying conflicting relations resulting from the alignment; and 3) semantic, based on disjoint top-level categories across ontologies.
results83% of the potential mismatches identified by the HMatch system are identified by at least one of the approaches.
conclusionsAlthough not a substitute for a careful validation of the matches, these approaches significantly reduce the need for manual validation by effectively characterizing most mismatches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18693957PMC2655858What 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.