Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34943202›Full record

ArticleBiology2021

Matching Biomedical Ontologies through Adaptive Multi-Modal Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm.

Xingsi Xue, Pei-Wei Tsai, Yucheng Zhuang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Large Language Models in Bio-Ontology Research: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
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

3 authors.

Xingsi XueFujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Big Data Mining and Applications, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou 350118, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3008-8782
Pei-Wei TsaiDepartment of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9429-8957
Yucheng ZhuangIntelligent Information Processing Research Center, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou 350118, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8491-8032

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 62172095Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province 2020J01875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To integrate massive amounts of heterogeneous biomedical data in biomedical ontologies and to provide more options for clinical diagnosis, this work proposes an adaptive Multi-modal Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (aMMOEA) to match two heterogeneous biomedical ontologies by finding the semantically identical concepts. In particular, we first propose two evaluation metrics on the alignment's quality, which calculate the alignment's statistical and its logical features, i.e., its f-measure and its conservativity. On this basis, we build a novel multi-objective optimization model for the biomedical ontology matching problem. By analyzing the essence of this problem, we point out that it is a large-scale Multi-modal Multi-objective Optimization Problem (MMOP) with sparse Pareto optimal solutions. Then, we propose a problem-specific aMMOEA to solve this problem, which uses the Guiding Matrix (GM) to adaptively guide the algorithm's convergence and diversity in both objective and decision spaces. The experiment uses Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI)'s biomedical tracks to test aMMOEA's performance, and comparisons with two state-of-the-art MOEA-based matching techniques and OAEI's participants show that aMMOEA is able to effectively determine diverse solutions for decision makers.

Indexed as

biomedical ontology matchingguiding matrixmulti-modal multi-objective evolutionary algorithm

Identifiers

PMID34943202
PMCPMC8698300

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.