ArticleWeb semantics (Online)2018
Analyzing user interactions with biomedical ontologies: A visual perspective.
Article in Web semantics (Online), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An exploratory study combining Virtual Reality and Semantic Web for life science research using Graph2VR.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Ontology-Based Interactive Visualization of Patient-Generated Research Questions.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Enabling Web-scale data integration in biomedicine through Linked Open Data.NPJ digital medicine · 2019Review
- BiOnIC: A Catalog of User Interactions with Biomedical Ontologies.The semantic Web--ISWC ... : ... International Semantic Web Conference ... proceedings. International Semantic Web Conference · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biomedical ontologies are large: Several ontologies in the BioPortal repository contain thousands or even hundreds of thousands of entities. The development and maintenance of such large ontologies is difficult. To support ontology authors and repository developers in their work, it is crucial to improve our understanding of how these ontologies are explored, queried, reused, and used in downstream applications by biomedical researchers. We present an exploratory empirical analysis of user activities in the BioPortal ontology repository by analyzing BioPortal interaction logs across different access modes over several years. We investigate how users of BioPortal query and search for ontologies and their classes, how they explore the ontologies, and how they reuse classes from different ontologies. Additionally, through three real-world scenarios, we not only analyze the usage of ontologies for annotation tasks but also compare it to the browsing and querying behaviors of BioPortal users. For our investigation, we use several different visualization techniques. To inspect large amounts of interaction, reuse, and real-world usage data at a glance, we make use of and extend PolygOnto, a visualization method that has been successfully used to analyze reuse of ontologies in previous work. Our results show that exploration, query, reuse, and actual usage behaviors rarely align, suggesting that different users tend to explore, query and use different parts of an ontology. Finally, we highlight and discuss differences and commonalities among users of BioPortal.
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.