ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2022
Performance assessment of ontology matching systems for FAIR data.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2022. 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.
- Strengthening Rare Disease Data Readiness: a semantic approach to cross-registry interoperability.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Opportunities and challenges in automated coding of electronic health records: a pilot study for rare disease registries.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The Journey to a FAIR CORE DATA SET for Diabetes Research in Germany.Scientific data · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOntology matching should contribute to the interoperability aspect of FAIR data (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). Multiple data sources can use different ontologies for annotating their data and, thus, creating the need for dynamic ontology matching services. In this experimental study, we assessed the performance of ontology matching systems in the context of a real-life application from the rare disease domain. Additionally, we present a method for analyzing top-level classes to improve precision.
resultsWe included three ontologies (NCIt, SNOMED CT, ORDO) and three matching systems (AgreementMakerLight 2.0, FCA-Map, LogMap 2.0). We evaluated the performance of the matching systems against reference alignments from BioPortal and the Unified Medical Language System Metathesaurus (UMLS). Then, we analyzed the top-level ancestors of matched classes, to detect incorrect mappings without consulting a reference alignment. To detect such incorrect mappings, we manually matched semantically equivalent top-level classes of ontology pairs. AgreementMakerLight 2.0, FCA-Map, and LogMap 2.0 had F1-scores of 0.55, 0.46, 0.55 for BioPortal and 0.66, 0.53, 0.58 for the UMLS respectively. Using vote-based consensus alignments increased performance across the board. Evaluation with manually created top-level hierarchy mappings revealed that on average 90% of the mappings' classes belonged to top-level classes that matched.
conclusionsOur findings show that the included ontology matching systems automatically produced mappings that were modestly accurate according to our evaluation. The hierarchical analysis of mappings seems promising when no reference alignments are available. All in all, the systems show potential to be implemented as part of an ontology matching service for querying FAIR data. Future research should focus on developing methods for the evaluation of mappings used in such mapping services, leading to their implementation in a FAIR data ecosystem.
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.