Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28651575›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2017

Ontological interpretation of biomedical database content.

Filipe Santana da Silva, Ludger Jansen, Fred Freitas, Stefan Schulz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Filipe Santana da SilvaCentro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Jornalista Anibal Fernandes, 50.740-560, Recife, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6803-1407
Ludger JansenInstitut für Philosophie, Universität Rostock, D-18051, Rostock, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0097-6359
Fred FreitasCentro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Jornalista Anibal Fernandes, 50.740-560, Recife, Brazil.
Stefan SchulzInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2/V, Graz, 8036, Austria. stefan.schulz@medunigraz.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7222-3287

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiological databases store data about laboratory experiments, together with semantic annotations, in order to support data aggregation and retrieval. The exact meaning of such annotations in the context of a database record is often ambiguous. We address this problem by grounding implicit and explicit database content in a formal-ontological framework.

methodsBy using a typical extract from the databases UniProt and Ensembl, annotated with content from GO, PR, ChEBI and NCBI Taxonomy, we created four ontological models (in OWL), which generate explicit, distinct interpretations under the BioTopLite2 (BTL2) upper-level ontology. The first three models interpret database entries as individuals (IND), defined classes (SUBC), and classes with dispositions (DISP), respectively; the fourth model (HYBR) is a combination of SUBC and DISP. For the evaluation of these four models, we consider (i) database content retrieval, using ontologies as query vocabulary; (ii) information completeness; and, (iii) DL complexity and decidability. The models were tested under these criteria against four competency questions (CQs).

resultsIND does not raise any ontological claim, besides asserting the existence of sample individuals and relations among them. Modelling patterns have to be created for each type of annotation referent. SUBC is interpreted regarding maximally fine-grained defined subclasses under the classes referred to by the data. DISP attempts to extract truly ontological statements from the database records, claiming the existence of dispositions. HYBR is a hybrid of SUBC and DISP and is more parsimonious regarding expressiveness and query answering complexity. For each of the four models, the four CQs were submitted as DL queries. This shows the ability to retrieve individuals with IND, and classes in SUBC and HYBR. DISP does not retrieve anything because the axioms with disposition are embedded in General Class Inclusion (GCI) statements.

conclusionAmbiguity of biological database content is addressed by a method that identifies implicit knowledge behind semantic annotations in biological databases and grounds it in an expressive upper-level ontology. The result is a seamless representation of database structure, content and annotations as OWL models.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesDatabases, FactualBiological databaseData semanticsInterpretationOntologyOWL

Identifiers

PMID28651575
PMCPMC5485580

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.