Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24999329›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2014

Interdisciplinary perspectives on the development, integration, and application of cognitive ontologies.

Janna Hastings, Gwen A Frishkoff, Barry Smith, Mark Jensen, Russell A Poldrack, Jane Lomax, Anita Bandrowski, Fahim Imam, Jessica A Turner, Maryann E Martone

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The evolution of cognitive models: From neuropsychology to neuroimaging and back.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Best behaviour? Ontologies and the formal description of animal behaviour.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2015
    Review
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

10 authors.

Janna HastingsEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory - European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus Hinxton, UK ; Department of Philosophy and Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva Switzerland ; Evolutionary Bioinformatics, Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gwen A FrishkoffDepartment of Psychology/Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University GA, USA.
Barry SmithDepartment of Philosophy and National Center for Ontological Research, University at Buffalo NY, USA.
Mark JensenDepartment of Philosophy and National Center for Ontological Research, University at Buffalo NY, USA.
Russell A PoldrackImaging Research Center, University of Texas at Austin TX, USA ; Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin TX, USA ; Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin TX, USA.
Jane LomaxEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory - European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus Hinxton, UK.
Anita BandrowskiNeuroinformatics Framework Project, University of California San Diego, CA, USA.
Fahim ImamNeuroinformatics Framework Project, University of California San Diego, CA, USA.
Jessica A TurnerDepartment of Psychology/Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University GA, USA ; Mind Research Network Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Maryann E MartoneNeuroinformatics Framework Project, University of California San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

Development of a Cognitive Paradigm Ontology: BrainMap and BIRN IntergrationR01MH084812 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI FOX, PETER THORNTON, TURNER, JESS · 2009 to 2011
$869k
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH084812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We discuss recent progress in the development of cognitive ontologies and summarize three challenges in the coordinated development and application of these resources. Challenge 1 is to adopt a standardized definition for cognitive processes. We describe three possibilities and recommend one that is consistent with the standard view in cognitive and biomedical sciences. Challenge 2 is harmonization. Gaps and conflicts in representation must be resolved so that these resources can be combined for mark-up and interpretation of multi-modal data. Finally, Challenge 3 is to test the utility of these resources for large-scale annotation of data, search and query, and knowledge discovery and integration. As term definitions are tested and revised, harmonization should enable coordinated updates across ontologies. However, the true test of these definitions will be in their community-wide adoption which will test whether they support valid inferences about psychological and neuroscientific data.

Indexed as

annotationbig databrain sciencecognitionintegrationmental functioningneuroscienceontology

Identifiers

PMID24999329
PMCPMC4064452

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.