ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2015
Biological Model Development as an Opportunity to Provide Content Auditing for the Foundational Model of Anatomy Ontology.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Constructing a biological model using an established ontology provides a unique opportunity to perform content auditing on the ontology. We built a Markov chain model to study tumor metastasis in the regional lymphatics of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The model attempts to determine regions with high likelihood for metastasis, which guides surgeons and radiation oncologists in selecting the boundaries of treatment. To achieve consistent anatomical relationships, the nodes in our model are populated using lymphatic objects extracted from the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA) ontology. During this process, we discovered several classes of inconsistencies in the lymphatic representations within the FMA. We were able to use this model building opportunity to audit the entities and connections in this region of interest (ROI). We found five subclasses of errors that are computationally detectable and resolvable, one subclass of errors that is computationally detectable but unresolvable, requiring the assistance of a content expert, and also errors of content, which cannot be detected through computational means. Mathematical descriptions of detectable errors along with expert review were used to discover inconsistencies and suggest concepts for addition and removal. Out of 106 organ and organ parts in the ROI, 8 unique entities were affected, leading to the suggestion of 30 concepts for addition and 4 for removal. Out of 27 lymphatic chain instances, 23 were found to have errors, with a total of 32 concepts suggested for addition and 15 concepts for removal. These content corrections are necessary for the accurate functioning of the FMA and provide benefits for future research and educational uses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26958311PMC4765672What 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.