ArticleHealth informatics journal2020
Ontological representation-oriented term normalization and standardization of the Research Domain Criteria.
Article in Health informatics journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Research Domain Criteria, launched by the National Institute of Mental Health, is a new dimensional and interdisciplinary research framework for mental disorders. The Research Domain Criteria matrix is its core part. Since an ontology has the strengths of supporting semantic inferencing and automatic data processing, we would like to transform the Research Domain Criteria matrix into an ontological structure. In terms of data normalization, which is the essential part of an ontology representation, the Research Domain Criteria elements (mainly in the Units of Analysis) have some limitations. In this article, we propose a series of solutions to improve data normalization of the Research Domain Criteria elements in the Units of Analysis, including leveraging standard terminologies (i.e. the Unified Medical Language System Metathesaurus), context-combining queries, and domain expertise. The evaluation results show the positive (Yes) percentage is more than 80 percent, indicating our work is favorably received by the mental health professionals, and we have formed a good data foundation for the Research Domain Criteria ontological representation in the future work.
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.