ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012
Process attributes in bio-ontologies.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The flora phenotype ontology (FLOPO): tool for integrating morphological traits and phenotypes of vascular plants.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2016Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiomedical processes can provide essential information about the (mal-) functioning of an organism and are thus frequently represented in biomedical terminologies and ontologies, including the GO Biological Process branch. These processes often need to be described and categorised in terms of their attributes, such as rates or regularities. The adequate representation of such process attributes has been a contentious issue in bio-ontologies recently; and domain ontologies have correspondingly developed ad hoc workarounds that compromise interoperability and logical consistency.
resultsWe present a design pattern for the representation of process attributes that is compatible with upper ontology frameworks such as BFO and BioTop. Our solution rests on two key tenets: firstly, that many of the sorts of process attributes which are biomedically interesting can be characterised by the ways that repeated parts of such processes constitute, in combination, an overall process; secondly, that entities for which a full logical definition can be assigned do not need to be treated as primitive within a formal ontology framework. We apply this approach to the challenge of modelling and automatically classifying examples of normal and abnormal rates and patterns of heart beating processes, and discuss the expressivity required in the underlying ontology representation language. We provide full definitions for process attributes at increasing levels of domain complexity.
conclusionsWe show that a logical definition of process attributes is feasible, though limited by the expressivity of DL languages so that the creation of primitives is still necessary. This finding may endorse current formal upper-ontology frameworks as a way of ensuring consistency, interoperability and clarity.
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.