ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2015
Combining expert knowledge and knowledge automatically acquired from electronic data sources for continued ontology evaluation and improvement.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2015. 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.
- Development and Validation of a Functional Behavioural Assessment Ontology to Support Behavioural Health Interventions.JMIR medical informatics · 2018Article
- Bacterial clinical infectious diseases ontology (BCIDO) dataset.Data in brief · 2016Article
- Clinical Decision Support: a 25 Year Retrospective and a 25 Year Vision.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Review
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
Abstract
introductionA common bottleneck during ontology evaluation is knowledge acquisition from domain experts for gold standard creation. This paper contributes a novel semi-automated method for evaluating the concept coverage and accuracy of biomedical ontologies by complementing expert knowledge with knowledge automatically extracted from clinical practice guidelines and electronic health records, which minimizes reliance on expensive domain expertise for gold standards generation.
methodsWe developed a bacterial clinical infectious diseases ontology (BCIDO) to assist clinical infectious disease treatment decision support. Using a semi-automated method we integrated diverse knowledge sources, including publically available infectious disease guidelines from international repositories, electronic health records, and expert-generated infectious disease case scenarios, to generate a compendium of infectious disease knowledge and use it to evaluate the accuracy and coverage of BCIDO.
resultsBCIDO has three classes (i.e., infectious disease, antibiotic, bacteria) containing 593 distinct concepts and 2345 distinct concept relationships. Our semi-automated method generated an ID knowledge compendium consisting of 637 concepts and 1554 concept relationships. Overall, BCIDO covered 79% (504/637) of the concepts and 89% (1378/1554) of the concept relationships in the ID compendium. BCIDO coverage of ID compendium concepts was 92% (121/131) for antibiotic, 80% (205/257) for infectious disease, and 72% (178/249) for bacteria. The low coverage of bacterial concepts in BCIDO was due to a difference in concept granularity between BCIDO and infectious disease guidelines. Guidelines and expert generated scenarios were the richest source of ID concepts and relationships while patient records provided relatively fewer concepts and relationships.
conclusionsOur semi-automated method was cost-effective for generating a useful knowledge compendium with minimal reliance on domain experts. This method can be useful for continued development and evaluation of biomedical ontologies for better accuracy and coverage.
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.