Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26215546›Full record

ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2015

Best behaviour? Ontologies and the formal description of animal behaviour.

Georgios V Gkoutos, Robert Hoehndorf, Loukia Tsaprouni, Paul N Schofield

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Georgios V GkoutosDepartment of Computer Science, University of Aberystwyth, Old College, King Street, Aberystwyth, SY23 2AX, UK. g.gkoutos@gmail.com.
Robert HoehndorfComputational Bioscience Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, 4700 KAUST, Thuwal, 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia.
Loukia TsaprouniInstitute of Sport and Physical Activity Research (ISPAR), University of Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire, UK.
Paul N SchofieldDepartment of Physiology Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. pns12@cam.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of ontologies for describing animal behaviour has proved to be one of the most difficult of all scientific knowledge domains. Ranging from neurological processes to human emotions, the range and scope needed for such ontologies is highly challenging, but if data integration and computational tools such as automated reasoning are to be fully applied in this important area the underlying principles of these ontologies need to be better established and development needs detailed coordination. Whilst the state of scientific knowledge is always paramount in ontology and formal description framework design, this is a particular problem with neurobehavioural ontologies where our understanding of the relationship between behaviour and its underlying biophysical basis is currently in its infancy. In this commentary, we discuss some of the fundamental problems in designing and using behaviour ontologies, and present some of the best developed tools in this domain.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalPhenotypeAnimalsBiological OntologiesDatabases, FactualHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.