Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25904997›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2015

Annotation-based feature extraction from sets of SBML models.

Rebekka Alm, Dagmar Waltemath, Markus Wolfien, Olaf Wolkenhauer, Ron Henkel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. FAIRification of computational models in biology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Identifying frequent patterns in biochemical reaction networks: a workflow.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2018
    Article
  6. Notions of similarity for systems biology models.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
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

5 authors.

Rebekka AlmDepartment of Multimedia Communication, University of Rostock, Joachim-Jungius-Str. 11, Rostock, 18051 Germany ; Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Research IGD, Joachim-Jungius-Str. 11, Rostock, 18059 Germany.
Dagmar WaltemathDepartment of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, University of Rostock, Ulmenstr. 69, Rostock, 18051 Germany.
Markus WolfienDepartment of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, University of Rostock, Ulmenstr. 69, Rostock, 18051 Germany.
Olaf WolkenhauerDepartment of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics, University of Rostock, Ulmenstr. 69, Rostock, 18051 Germany ; Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), Wallenberg Research Centre at Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Ron HenkelDepartment of Mobile Multimedia Information Systems, University of Rostock, Albert-Einstein-Str. 22, Rostock, 18051 Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModel repositories such as BioModels Database provide computational models of biological systems for the scientific community. These models contain rich semantic annotations that link model entities to concepts in well-established bio-ontologies such as Gene Ontology. Consequently, thematically similar models are likely to share similar annotations. Based on this assumption, we argue that semantic annotations are a suitable tool to characterize sets of models. These characteristics improve model classification, allow to identify additional features for model retrieval tasks, and enable the comparison of sets of models.

resultsIn this paper we discuss four methods for annotation-based feature extraction from model sets. We tested all methods on sets of models in SBML format which were composed from BioModels Database. To characterize each of these sets, we analyzed and extracted concepts from three frequently used ontologies, namely Gene Ontology, ChEBI and SBO. We find that three out of the methods are suitable to determine characteristic features for arbitrary sets of models: The selected features vary depending on the underlying model set, and they are also specific to the chosen model set. We show that the identified features map on concepts that are higher up in the hierarchy of the ontologies than the concepts used for model annotations. Our analysis also reveals that the information content of concepts in ontologies and their usage for model annotation do not correlate.

conclusionsAnnotation-based feature extraction enables the comparison of model sets, as opposed to existing methods for model-to-keyword comparison, or model-to-model comparison.

Indexed as

Bio-ontologiesFeature extractionModel similaritySBML

Identifiers

PMID25904997
PMCPMC4405863

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.