Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31210270›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2019

Using association rule mining and ontologies to generate metadata recommendations from multiple biomedical databases.

Marcos Martínez-Romero, Martin J O'Connor, Attila L Egyedi, Debra Willrett, Josef Hardi, John Graybeal, Mark A Musen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Understanding the Nature of Metadata: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Marcos Martínez-RomeroStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5479, USA.
Martin J O'ConnorStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5479, USA.
Attila L EgyediStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5479, USA.
Debra WillrettStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5479, USA.
Josef HardiStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5479, USA.
John GraybealStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5479, USA.
Mark A MusenStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305-5479, USA.

Funding

STANFORD COMPOSITE(RMI)U54HG004028 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MUSEN, MARK A · 2005 to 2014
$36.2M
TrainingU54AI117925 · NIAID · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MUSEN, MARK A · 2014 to 2018
$12.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG004028NIAID NIH HHS U54 AI117925
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metadata-the machine-readable descriptions of the data-are increasingly seen as crucial for describing the vast array of biomedical datasets that are currently being deposited in public repositories. While most public repositories have firm requirements that metadata must accompany submitted datasets, the quality of those metadata is generally very poor. A key problem is that the typical metadata acquisition process is onerous and time consuming, with little interactive guidance or assistance provided to users. Secondary problems include the lack of validation and sparse use of standardized terms or ontologies when authoring metadata. There is a pressing need for improvements to the metadata acquisition process that will help users to enter metadata quickly and accurately. In this paper, we outline a recommendation system for metadata that aims to address this challenge. Our approach uses association rule mining to uncover hidden associations among metadata values and to represent them in the form of association rules. These rules are then used to present users with real-time recommendations when authoring metadata. The novelties of our method are that it is able to combine analyses of metadata from multiple repositories when generating recommendations and can enhance those recommendations by aligning them with ontology terms. We implemented our approach as a service integrated into the CEDAR Workbench metadata authoring platform, and evaluated it using metadata from two public biomedical repositories: US-based National Center for Biotechnology Information BioSample and European Bioinformatics Institute BioSamples. The results show that our approach is able to use analyses of previously entered metadata coupled with ontology-based mappings to present users with accurate recommendations when authoring metadata.

Indexed as

MetadataComputational BiologyDatabases, FactualData Mining

Identifiers

PMID31210270
PMCPMC6866600

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.