Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29743102›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2018

Extending the DIDEO ontology to include entities from the natural product drug interaction domain of discourse.

John Judkins, Jessica Tay-Sontheimer, Richard D Boyce, Mathias Brochhausen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Role and Promise of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Toxicology.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

John JudkinsDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Jessica Tay-SontheimerSchool of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Richard D BoyceDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Mathias BrochhausenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. mbrochhausen@uams.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1834-3856

Funding

Pharmacology CoreU54AT008909 · NCCIH · WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PAINE, MARY F · 2015 to 2024
$22.4M
Addressing gaps in clinically useful evidence on drug-drug interactionsR01LM011838 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BOYCE, RICHARD DAVID · 2014 to 2017
$1.6M
NCCIH NIH HHS U54 AT008909NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrompted by the frequency of concomitant use of prescription drugs with natural products, and the lack of knowledge regarding the impact of pharmacokinetic-based natural product-drug interactions (PK-NPDIs), the United States National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health has established a center of excellence for PK-NPDI. The Center is creating a public database to help researchers (primarly pharmacologists and medicinal chemists) to share and access data, results, and methods from PK-NPDI studies. In order to represent the semantics of the data and foster interoperability, we are extending the Drug-Drug Interaction and Evidence Ontology (DIDEO) to include definitions for terms used by the data repository. This is feasible due to a number of similarities between pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and PK-NPDIs.

methodsTo achieve this, we set up an iterative domain analysis in the following steps. In Step 1 PK-NPDI domain experts produce a list of terms and definitions based on data from PK-NPDI studies, in Step 2 an ontology expert creates ontologically appropriate classes and definitions from the list along with class axioms, in Step 3 there is an iterative editing process during which the domain experts and the ontology experts review, assess, and amend class labels and definitions and in Step 4 the ontology expert implements the new classes in the DIDEO development branch. This workflow often results in different labels and definitions for the new classes in DIDEO than the domain experts initially provided; the latter are preserved in DIDEO as separate annotations.

resultsStep 1 resulted in a list of 344 terms. During Step 2 we found that 9 of these terms already existed in DIDEO, and 6 existed in other OBO Foundry ontologies. These 6 were imported into DIDEO; additional terms from multiple OBO Foundry ontologies were also imported, either to serve as superclasses for new terms in the initial list or to build axioms for these terms. At the time of writing, 7 terms have definitions ready for review (Step 2), 64 are ready for implementation (Step 3) and 112 have been pushed to DIDEO (Step 4). Step 2 also suggested that 26 terms of the original list were redundant and did not need implementation; the domain experts agreed to remove them. Step 4 resulted in many terms being added to DIDEO that help to provide an additional layer of granularity in describing experimental conditions and results, e.g. transfected cultured cells used in metabolism studies and chemical reactions used in measuring enzyme activity. These terms also were integrated into the NaPDI repository.

conclusionWe found DIDEO to provide a sound foundation for semantic representation of PK-NPDI terms, and we have shown the novelty of the project in that DIDEO is the only ontology in which NPDI terms are formally defined.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesBiological ProductsDrug InteractionsBiological ProductsBiomedical ontologiesDrug-drug interactionsNatural product-drug interactionsOWLPharmaceuticalsPharmacokinetics

Identifiers

PMID29743102
PMCPMC5944177

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.