ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021
Matching Biomedical Ontologies: Construction of Matching Clues and Systematic Evaluation of Different Combinations of Matchers.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The standard problem.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Knowledge Representation and Management: Notable Contributions in 2021.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Matching Biomedical OntologiesFrontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOntology matching seeks to find semantic correspondences between ontologies. With an increasing number of biomedical ontologies being developed independently, matching these ontologies to solve the interoperability problem has become a critical task in biomedical applications. However, some challenges remain. First, extracting and constructing matching clues from biomedical ontologies is a nontrivial problem. Second, it is unknown whether there are dominant matchers while matching biomedical ontologies. Finally, ontology matching also suffers from computational complexity owing to the large-scale sizes of biomedical ontologies.
objectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of matching clues and composite match approaches, this paper presents a spectrum of matchers with different combination strategies and empirically studies their influence on matching biomedical ontologies. Besides, extended reduction anchors are introduced to effectively decrease the time complexity while matching large biomedical ontologies.
methodsIn this paper, atomic and composite matching clues are first constructed in 4 dimensions: terminology, structure, external knowledge, and representation learning. Then, a spectrum of matchers based on a flexible combination of atomic clues are designed and utilized to comprehensively study the effectiveness. Besides, we carry out a systematic comparative evaluation of different combinations of matchers. Finally, extended reduction anchor is proposed to significantly alleviate the time complexity for matching large-scale biomedical ontologies.
resultsExperimental results show that considering distinguishable matching clues in biomedical ontologies leads to a substantial improvement in all available information. Besides, incorporating different types of matchers with reliability results in a marked improvement, which is comparative to the state-of-the-art methods. The dominant matchers achieve F1 measures of 0.9271, 0.8218, and 0.5 on Anatomy, FMA-NCI (Foundation Model of Anatomy-National Cancer Institute), and FMA-SNOMED data sets, respectively. Extended reduction anchor is able to solve the scalability problem of matching large biomedical ontologies. It achieves a significant reduction in time complexity with little loss of F1 measure at the same time, with a 0.21% decrease on the Anatomy data set and 0.84% decrease on the FMA-NCI data set, but with a 2.65% increase on the FMA-SNOMED data set.
conclusionsThis paper systematically analyzes and compares the effectiveness of different matching clues, matchers, and combination strategies. Multiple empirical studies demonstrate that distinguishing clues have significant implications for matching biomedical ontologies. In contrast to the matchers with single clue, those combining multiple clues exhibit more stable and accurate performance. In addition, our results provide evidence that the approach based on extended reduction anchors performs well for large ontology matching tasks, demonstrating an effective solution for the problem.
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.