ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2023
An automated model annotation system (AMAS) for SBML models.
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 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.
- Antimony 3: Extending human-readable model definitions for SBML Level 3 Core and Packages.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Antimony 3: Extending human-readable model definitions for SBML Level 3 Core and Packages.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- LM-Merger: a workflow for merging logical models with an application to gene regulatory network models.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationAnnotations of biochemical models provide details of chemical species, documentation of chemical reactions, and other essential information. Unfortunately, the vast majority of biochemical models have few, if any, annotations, or the annotations provide insufficient detail to understand the limitations of the model. The quality and quantity of annotations can be improved by developing tools that recommend annotations. For example, recommender tools have been developed for annotations of genes. Although annotating genes is conceptually similar to annotating biochemical models, there are important technical differences that make it difficult to directly apply this prior work.
resultsWe present AMAS, a system that predicts annotations for elements of models represented in the Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML) community standard. We provide a general framework for predicting model annotations for a query element based on a database of annotated reference elements and a match score function that calculates the similarity between the query element and reference elements. The framework is instantiated to specific element types (e.g. species, reactions) by specifying the reference database (e.g. ChEBI for species) and the match score function (e.g. string similarity). We analyze the computational efficiency and prediction quality of AMAS for species and reactions in BiGG and BioModels and find that it has subsecond response times and accuracy between 80% and 95% depending on specifics of what is predicted. We have incorporated AMAS into an open-source, pip-installable Python package that can run as a command-line tool that predicts and adds annotations to species and reactions to an SBML model. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our project is hosted at https://github.com/sys-bio/AMAS, where we provide examples, documentation, and source code files. Our source code is licensed under the MIT open-source license.
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.