ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2019
Where to search top-K biomedical ontologies?
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Processing genome-wide association studies within a repository of heterogeneous genomic datasets.BMC genomic data · 2023Article
- GenoSurf: metadata driven semantic search system for integrated genomic datasets.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
motivationSearching for precise terms and terminological definitions in the biomedical data space is problematic, as researchers find overlapping, closely related and even equivalent concepts in a single or multiple ontologies. Search engines that retrieve ontological resources often suggest an extensive list of search results for a given input term, which leads to the tedious task of selecting the best-fit ontological resource (class or property) for the input term and reduces user confidence in the retrieval engines. A systematic evaluation of these search engines is necessary to understand their strengths and weaknesses in different search requirements.
resultWe have implemented seven comparable Information Retrieval ranking algorithms to search through ontologies and compared them against four search engines for ontologies. Free-text queries have been performed, the outcomes have been judged by experts and the ranking algorithms and search engines have been evaluated against the expert-based ground truth (GT). In addition, we propose a probabilistic GT that is developed automatically to provide deeper insights and confidence to the expert-based GT as well as evaluating a broader range of search queries.
conclusionThe main outcome of this work is the identification of key search factors for biomedical ontologies together with search requirements and a set of recommendations that will help biomedical experts and ontology engineers to select the best-suited retrieval mechanism in their search scenarios. We expect that this evaluation will allow researchers and practitioners to apply the current search techniques more reliably and that it will help them to select the right solution for their daily work. AVAILABILITY: The source code (of seven ranking algorithms), ground truths and experimental results are available at https://github.com/danielapoliveira/bioont-search-benchmark.
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.