Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19534744›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009

Visualising biological data: a semantic approach to tool and database integration.

Steve Pettifer, David Thorne, Philip McDermott, James Marsh, Alice Villéger, Douglas B Kell, Teresa K Attwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Data integration in biological research: an overview.Journal of biological research (Thessalonike, Greece) · 2015
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of deadenylases.Evolutionary bioinformatics online · 2013
    Article
  7. Scientific discovery as a combinatorial optimisation problem: how best to navigate the landscape of possible experiments?BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2012
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

7 authors.

Steve PettiferSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. steve.pettifer@manchester.ac.uk
David Thorne
Philip McDermott
James Marsh
Alice Villéger
Douglas B Kell
Teresa K Attwood

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E016065/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationIn the biological sciences, the need to analyse vast amounts of information has become commonplace. Such large-scale analyses often involve drawing together data from a variety of different databases, held remotely on the internet or locally on in-house servers. Supporting these tasks are ad hoc collections of data-manipulation tools, scripting languages and visualisation software, which are often combined in arcane ways to create cumbersome systems that have been customized for a particular purpose, and are consequently not readily adaptable to other uses. For many day-to-day bioinformatics tasks, the sizes of current databases, and the scale of the analyses necessary, now demand increasing levels of automation; nevertheless, the unique experience and intuition of human researchers is still required to interpret the end results in any meaningful biological way. Putting humans in the loop requires tools to support real-time interaction with these vast and complex data-sets. Numerous tools do exist for this purpose, but many do not have optimal interfaces, most are effectively isolated from other tools and databases owing to incompatible data formats, and many have limited real-time performance when applied to realistically large data-sets: much of the user's cognitive capacity is therefore focused on controlling the software and manipulating esoteric file formats rather than on performing the research.

methodsTo confront these issues, harnessing expertise in human-computer interaction (HCI), high-performance rendering and distributed systems, and guided by bioinformaticians and end-user biologists, we are building reusable software components that, together, create a toolkit that is both architecturally sound from a computing point of view, and addresses both user and developer requirements. Key to the system's usability is its direct exploitation of semantics, which, crucially, gives individual components knowledge of their own functionality and allows them to interoperate seamlessly, removing many of the existing barriers and bottlenecks from standard bioinformatics tasks.

resultsThe toolkit, named Utopia, is freely available from http://utopia.cs.man.ac.uk/.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualComputational BiologyInformation Storage and RetrievalInternetSemanticsSystems IntegrationUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID19534744
PMCPMC2697642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.