ReviewPLoS computational biology2009
Semantic similarity in biomedical ontologies.
Review in PLoS computational biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 289 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
289 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protein Language Model Embeddings Reveal Proteome-Scale Ortholog Divergence Relevant to Cross-Species Pharmacology.Proteomes · 2026Article
- Improving FAIRness of Geospatial data using Large Language Models.Scientific data · 2026Article
- INDIGENA: inductive prediction of disease-gene associations using phenotype ontologies.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Bacterial extracellular vesicles as recyclable nutrient reservoirs.Nature communications · 2026Article
- From toxicogenomics data to cumulative assessment groups: a framework for chemical grouping.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Optimizing large language models for ontology-based annotation: a study on gene ontology in biomedical texts.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Polycomb-associated and Trithorax-associated developmental conditions-phenotypic convergence and heterogeneity.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- GeneSetCluster 2.0: a comprehensive toolset for summarizing and integrating gene-sets analysis.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Pathway Analysis Interpretation in the Multi-Omic Era.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2025Review
- OntoTiger: a platform of ontology-based application tools for integrative biomedical exploration.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Structural Changes in Gene Ontology Reveal Modular and Complex Representations of Biological Function.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Breaking Digital Health Barriers Through a Large Language Model-Based Tool for Automated Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Mapping: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for detecting protein complexes in PPI networks using gene ontology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A phenotype-based AI pipeline outperforms human experts in differentially diagnosing rare diseases using EHRs.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Influence of multi-species data on gene-disease associations in substance use disorder using random walk with restart models.PloS one · 2025Article
- Pheno-Ranker: a toolkit for comparison of phenotypic data stored in GA4GH standards and beyond.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Serum DNA methylome of the colorectal cancer serrated pathway enables non-invasive detection.Molecular oncology · 2024Article
- Semantic redundancy-aware implicit neural compression for multidimensional biomedical image data.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Computational drug repositioning with attention walking.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- BugSigDB captures patterns of differential abundance across a broad range of host-associated microbial signatures.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
229 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, ontologies have become a mainstream topic in biomedical research. When biological entities are described using a common schema, such as an ontology, they can be compared by means of their annotations. This type of comparison is called semantic similarity, since it assesses the degree of relatedness between two entities by the similarity in meaning of their annotations. The application of semantic similarity to biomedical ontologies is recent; nevertheless, several studies have been published in the last few years describing and evaluating diverse approaches. Semantic similarity has become a valuable tool for validating the results drawn from biomedical studies such as gene clustering, gene expression data analysis, prediction and validation of molecular interactions, and disease gene prioritization. We review semantic similarity measures applied to biomedical ontologies and propose their classification according to the strategies they employ: node-based versus edge-based and pairwise versus groupwise. We also present comparative assessment studies and discuss the implications of their results. We survey the existing implementations of semantic similarity measures, and we describe examples of applications to biomedical research. This will clarify how biomedical researchers can benefit from semantic similarity measures and help them choose the approach most suitable for their studies.Biomedical ontologies are evolving toward increased coverage, formality, and integration, and their use for annotation is increasingly becoming a focus of both effort by biomedical experts and application of automated annotation procedures to create corpora of higher quality and completeness than are currently available. Given that semantic similarity measures are directly dependent on these evolutions, we can expect to see them gaining more relevance and even becoming as essential as sequence similarity is today in biomedical research.
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.