ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2009
The caBIG terminology review process.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- CanProVar 2.0: An Updated Database of Human Cancer Proteome Variation.Journal of proteome research · 2017Article
- Quantitative imaging biomarker ontology (QIBO) for knowledge representation of biomedical imaging biomarkers.Journal of digital imaging · 2013Review
- Article
- Enabling international adoption of LOINC through translation.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2012Article
- The Cardiac Atlas Project--an imaging database for computational modeling and statistical atlases of the heart.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2011Article
- The PhenX Toolkit: get the most from your measures.American journal of epidemiology · 2011Article
- Building a biomedical cyberinfrastructure for collaborative research.American journal of preventive medicine · 2011Article
- Exposing the cancer genome atlas as a SPARQL endpoint.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2010Article
- CanProVar: a human cancer proteome variation database.Human mutation · 2010Article
- Knowledge-based data analysis comes of age.Briefings in bioinformatics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing an integrated biomedical informatics infrastructure, the cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG), to support collaboration within the cancer research community. A key part of the caBIG architecture is the establishment of terminology standards for representing data. In order to evaluate the suitability of existing controlled terminologies, the caBIG Vocabulary and Data Elements Workspace (VCDE WS) working group has developed a set of criteria that serve to assess a terminology's structure, content, documentation, and editorial process. This paper describes the evolution of these criteria and the results of their use in evaluating four standard terminologies: the Gene Ontology (GO), the NCI Thesaurus (NCIt), the Common Terminology for Adverse Events (known as CTCAE), and the laboratory portion of the Logical Objects, Identifiers, Names and Codes (LOINC). The resulting caBIG criteria are presented as a matrix that may be applicable to any terminology standardization effort.
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.