Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29347969›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedical semantics2018

MIRO: guidelines for minimum information for the reporting of an ontology.

Nicolas Matentzoglu, James Malone, Chris Mungall, Robert Stevens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. GallOnt: An ontology for plant gall phenotypes.Biodiversity data journal · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The Ontology of Biological Attributes (OBA)-computational traits for the life sciences.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. OBO Foundry in 2021: operationalizing open data principles to evaluate ontologies.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Nicolas MatentzogluSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. nicolas.matentzoglu@manchester.ac.uk.
James MaloneFactBio, Innovation Centre, Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 0EY, UK.
Chris MungallLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, USA.
Robert StevensSchool of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.

Funding

An Intelligent Concept Agent for Assisting with the Application of MetadataU01HG009453 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LAWRENC BERKELEY LAB · PI MUNGALL, CHRISTOPHER J · 2016 to 2018
$1.7M
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG009453
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCreation and use of ontologies has become a mainstream activity in many disciplines, in particular, the biomedical domain. Ontology developers often disseminate information about these ontologies in peer-reviewed ontology description reports. There appears to be, however, a high degree of variability in the content of these reports. Often, important details are omitted such that it is difficult to gain a sufficient understanding of the ontology, its content and method of creation.

resultsWe propose the Minimum Information for Reporting an Ontology (MIRO) guidelines as a means to facilitate a higher degree of completeness and consistency between ontology documentation, including published papers, and ultimately a higher standard of report quality. A draft of the MIRO guidelines was circulated for public comment in the form of a questionnaire, and we subsequently collected 110 responses from ontology authors, developers, users and reviewers. We report on the feedback of this consultation, including comments on each guideline, and present our analysis on the relative importance of each MIRO information item. These results were used to update the MIRO guidelines, mainly by providing more detailed operational definitions of the individual items and assigning degrees of importance. Based on our revised version of MIRO, we conducted a review of 15 recently published ontology description reports from three important journals in the Semantic Web and Biomedical domain and analysed them for compliance with the MIRO guidelines. We found that only 41.38% of the information items were covered by the majority of the papers (and deemed important by the survey respondents) and a large number of important items are not covered at all, like those related to testing and versioning policies.

conclusionsWe believe that the community-reviewed MIRO guidelines can contribute to improving significantly the quality of ontology description reports and other documentation, in particular by increasing consistent reporting of important ontology features that are otherwise often neglected.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesGuidelines as TopicResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesMinimum informationOntologiesOntology reportingReporting guidelines

Identifiers

PMID29347969
PMCPMC5774126

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.