ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2012
Using ontology-based annotation to profile disease research.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Finding collaborators: toward interactive discovery tools for research network systems.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Article
- Article
- Epilepsy and seizure ontology: towards an epilepsy informatics infrastructure for clinical research and patient care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProfiling the allocation and trend of research activity is of interest to funding agencies, administrators, and researchers. However, the lack of a common classification system hinders the comprehensive and systematic profiling of research activities. This study introduces ontology-based annotation as a method to overcome this difficulty. Analyzing over a decade of funding data and publication data, the trends of disease research are profiled across topics, across institutions, and over time.
resultsThis study introduces and explores the notions of research sponsorship and allocation and shows that leaders of research activity can be identified within specific disease areas of interest, such as those with high mortality or high sponsorship. The funding profiles of disease topics readily cluster themselves in agreement with the ontology hierarchy and closely mirror the funding agency priorities. Finally, four temporal trends are identified among research topics.
conclusionsThis work utilizes disease ontology (DO)-based annotation to profile effectively the landscape of biomedical research activity. By using DO in this manner a use-case driven mechanism is also proposed to evaluate the utility of classification hierarchies.
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.