ArticleScientific reports2022
A semantic web technology index.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Astrocyte autophagy-pyroptosis crosstalk in Alzheimer's: insights from knowledge graphs.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- eDEM-CONNECT: agitation ontology for the intelligent support of informal caregivers of people with dementia.Frontiers in aging · 2026Article
- KSDKG: construction and application of knowledge graph for kidney stone disease based on biomedical literature and public databases.Health information science and systems · 2024Article
- Developing an ontology of non-pharmacological treatment for emotional and mood disturbances in dementia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Mining literature and pathway data to explore the relations of ketamine with neurotransmitters and gut microbiota using a knowledge-graph.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Towards a knowledge graph for pre-/probiotics and microbiota-gut-brain axis diseases.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Semantic web (SW) technology has been widely applied to many domains such as medicine, health care, finance, geology. At present, researchers mainly rely on their experience and preferences to develop and evaluate the work of SW technology. Although the general architecture (e.g., Tim Berners-Lee's Semantic Web Layer Cake) of SW technology was proposed many years ago and has been well-known, it still lacks a concrete guideline for standardizing the development of SW technology. In this paper, we propose an SW technology index to standardize the development for ensuring that the work of SW technology is designed well and to quantitatively evaluate the quality of the work in SW technology. This index consists of 10 criteria that quantify the quality as a score of [Formula: see text]. We address each criterion in detail for a clear explanation from three aspects: (1) what is the criterion? (2) why do we consider this criterion and (3) how do the current studies meet this criterion? Finally, we present the validation of this index by providing some examples of how to apply the index to the validation cases. We conclude that the index is a useful standard to guide and evaluate the work in SW technology.
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.