ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2013
A unified approach for debugging is-a structure and mappings in networked taxonomies.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences from the anatomy track in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2017Review
- Completing the is-a structure in light-weight ontologies.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increased use of ontologies and ontology mappings in semantically-enabled applications such as ontology-based search and data integration, the issue of detecting and repairing defects in ontologies and ontology mappings has become increasingly important. These defects can lead to wrong or incomplete results for the applications.
resultsWe propose a unified framework for debugging the is-a structure of and mappings between taxonomies, the most used kind of ontologies. We present theory and algorithms as well as an implemented system RepOSE, that supports a domain expert in detecting and repairing missing and wrong is-a relations and mappings. We also discuss two experiments performed by domain experts: an experiment on the Anatomy ontologies from the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative, and a debugging session for the Swedish National Food Agency.
conclusionsSemantically-enabled applications need high quality ontologies and ontology mappings. One key aspect is the detection and removal of defects in the ontologies and ontology mappings. Our system RepOSE provides an environment that supports domain experts to deal with this issue. We have shown the usefulness of the approach in two experiments by detecting and repairing circa 200 and 30 defects, respectively.
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.