ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019
Multi-domain semantic similarity in biomedical research.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the increasing amount of biomedical resources that are being annotated with concepts from more than one ontology and covering multiple domains of knowledge, it is important to devise mechanisms to compare these resources that take into account the various domains of annotation. For example, metabolic pathways are annotated with their enzymes and their metabolites, and thus similarity measures should compare them with respect to both of those domains simultaneously.
resultsIn this paper, we propose two approaches to lift existing single-ontology semantic similarity measures into multi-domain measures. The aggregative approach compares domains independently and averages the various similarity values into a final score. The integrative approach integrates all the relevant ontologies into a single one, calculating similarity in the resulting multi-domain ontology using the single-ontology measure.
conclusionsWe evaluated the two approaches in a multidisciplinary epidemiology dataset by evaluating the capacity of the similarity measures to predict new annotations based on the existing ones. The results show a promising increase in performance of the multi-domain measures over the single-ontology ones in the vast majority of the cases. These results show that multi-domain measures outperform single-domain ones, and should be considered by the community as a starting point to study more efficient multi-domain semantic similarity measures.
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.