ArticleJournal of automated reasoning2017
The OWL Reasoner Evaluation (ORE) 2015 Competition Report.
Article in Journal of automated reasoning, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ontologies Applied in Clinical Decision Support System Rules: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Review
- Personalized Recommendations for Physical Activity e-Coaching (OntoRecoModel): Ontological Modeling.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- An Automatic Ontology-Based Approach to Support Logical Representation of Observable and Measurable Data for Healthy Lifestyle Management: Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Developing an ontology for representing the domain knowledge specific to non-pharmacological treatment for agitation in dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2020Article
- Extending XNAT Platform with an Incremental Semantic Framework.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2017Article
- The OWL Reasoner Evaluation (ORE) 2015 Competition Report.Journal of automated reasoning · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The OWL Reasoner Evaluation competition is an annual competition (with an associated workshop) that pits OWL 2 compliant reasoners against each other on various standard reasoning tasks over naturally occurring problems. The 2015 competition was the third of its sort and had 14 reasoners competing in six tracks comprising three tasks (consistency, classification, and realisation) over two profiles (OWL 2 DL and EL). In this paper, we discuss the design, execution and results of the 2015 competition with particular attention to lessons learned for benchmarking, comparative experiments, and future competitions.
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.