ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2023
Assessing resolvability, parsability, and consistency of RDF resources: a use case in rare diseases.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing resolvability, parsability, and consistency of RDF resources: a use case in rare diseases.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2023Article
- Automated approach for quality assessment of RDF resources.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHealthcare data and the knowledge gleaned from it play a key role in improving the health of current and future patients. These knowledge sources are regularly represented as 'linked' resources based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF). Making resources 'linkable' to facilitate their interoperability is especially important in the rare-disease domain, where health resources are scattered and scarce. However, to benefit from using RDF, resources need to be of good quality. Based on existing metrics, we aim to assess the quality of RDF resources related to rare diseases and provide recommendations for their improvement.
methodsSixteen resources of relevance for the rare-disease domain were selected: two schemas, three metadatasets, and eleven ontologies. These resources were tested on six objective metrics regarding resolvability, parsability, and consistency. Any URI that failed the test based on any of the six metrics was recorded as an error. The error count and percentage of each tested resource were recorded. The assessment results were represented in RDF, using the Data Quality Vocabulary schema.
resultsFor three out of the six metrics, the assessment revealed quality issues. Eleven resources have non-resolvable URIs with proportion to all URIs ranging from 0.1% (6/6,712) in the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification to 13.7% (17/124) in the WikiPathways Ontology; seven resources have undefined URIs; and two resources have incorrectly used properties of the 'owl:ObjectProperty' type. Individual errors were examined to generate suggestions for the development of high-quality RDF resources, including the tested resources.
conclusionWe assessed the resolvability, parsability, and consistency of RDF resources in the rare-disease domain, and determined the extent of these types of errors that potentially affect interoperability. The qualitative investigation on these errors reveals how they can be avoided. All findings serve as valuable input for the development of a guideline for creating high-quality RDF resources, thereby enhancing the interoperability of biomedical resources.
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.