Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37010521›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2023

Using language models and ontology topology to perform semantic mapping of traits between biomedical datasets.

Yi Liu, Benjamin L Elsworth, Tom R Gaunt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2023. 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. Article
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.

Yi LiuMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2051-440X
Benjamin L ElsworthOur Future Health, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Tom R GauntMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0924-3247

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationHuman traits are typically represented in both the biomedical literature and large population studies as descriptive text strings. Whilst a number of ontologies exist, none of these perfectly represent the entire human phenome and exposome. Mapping trait names across large datasets is therefore time-consuming and challenging. Recent developments in language modelling have created new methods for semantic representation of words and phrases, and these methods offer new opportunities to map human trait names in the form of words and short phrases, both to ontologies and to each other. Here, we present a comparison between a range of established and more recent language modelling approaches for the task of mapping trait names from UK Biobank to the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO), and also explore how they compare to each other in direct trait-to-trait mapping.

resultsIn our analyses of 1191 traits from UK Biobank with manual EFO mappings, the BioSentVec model performed best at predicting these, matching 40.3% of the manual mappings correctly. The BlueBERT-EFO model (finetuned on EFO) performed nearly as well (38.8% of traits matching the manual mapping). In contrast, Levenshtein edit distance only mapped 22% of traits correctly. Pairwise mapping of traits to each other demonstrated that many of the models can accurately group similar traits based on their semantic similarity. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our code is available at https://github.com/MRCIEU/vectology.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesSemanticsHumansLanguageNatural Language ProcessingPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID37010521
PMCPMC10097433

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.