Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35102292›Full record

ArticleNature biotechnology2022

A knowledge graph to interpret clinical proteomics data.

Alberto Santos, Ana R Colaço, Annelaura B Nielsen, Lili Niu, Maximilian Strauss, Philipp E Geyer, Fabian Coscia, Nicolai J Wewer Albrechtsen, Filip Mundt, Lars Juhl Jensen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

117 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A Systematic Review of the Application of Graph Neural Networks to Extract Candidate Genes and Biological Associations.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Alberto SantosNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. alberto.santos@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9163-7730
Ana R ColaçoNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Annelaura B NielsenNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lili NiuNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maximilian StraussNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Philipp E GeyerNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Fabian CosciaNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2244-5081
Nicolai J Wewer AlbrechtsenNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4230-5753
Filip MundtNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lars Juhl JensenNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7885-715X
Matthias MannNNF Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. mmann@biochem.mpg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1292-4799

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implementing precision medicine hinges on the integration of omics data, such as proteomics, into the clinical decision-making process, but the quantity and diversity of biomedical data, and the spread of clinically relevant knowledge across multiple biomedical databases and publications, pose a challenge to data integration. Here we present the Clinical Knowledge Graph (CKG), an open-source platform currently comprising close to 20 million nodes and 220 million relationships that represent relevant experimental data, public databases and literature. The graph structure provides a flexible data model that is easily extendable to new nodes and relationships as new databases become available. The CKG incorporates statistical and machine learning algorithms that accelerate the analysis and interpretation of typical proteomics workflows. Using a set of proof-of-concept biomarker studies, we show how the CKG might augment and enrich proteomics data and help inform clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Knowledge BasesProteomicsAlgorithmsDecision Making, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningPattern Recognition, AutomatedPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID35102292
PMCPMC9110295

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.