Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40114255›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2025

Enriched knowledge representation in biological fields: a case study of literature-based discovery in Alzheimer's disease.

Yiyuan Pu, Daniel Beck, Karin Verspoor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2025. 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.

Yiyuan PuSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, 700 Swanston St, Melbourne, VIC 3053, Victoria, Australia.
Daniel BeckSchool of Computing Technologies, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Victoria, Australia.
Karin VerspoorSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, 700 Swanston St, Melbourne, VIC 3053, Victoria, Australia. karin.verspoor@rmit.edu.au.

Funding

Australian Research Council CI70200030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Literature-based Discovery (LBD), Swanson's original ABC model brought together isolated public knowledge statements and assembled them to infer putative hypotheses via logical connections. Modern LBD studies that scale up this approach through automation typically rely on a simple entity-based knowledge graph with co-occurrences and/or semantic triples as basic building blocks. However, our analysis of a knowledge graph constructed for a recent LBD system reveals limitations arising from such pairwise representations, which further negatively impact knowledge inference. Using LBD as the context and motivation in this work, we explore limitations of using pairwise relationships only as knowledge representation in knowledge graphs, and we identify impacts of these limitations on knowledge inference. We argue that enhanced knowledge representation is beneficial for biological knowledge representation in general, as well as for both the quality and the specificity of hypotheses proposed with LBD.

resultsBased on a systematic analysis of one co-occurrence-based LBD system focusing on Alzheimer's Disease, we identify 7 types of limitations arising from the exclusive use of pairwise relationships in a standard knowledge graph-including the need to capture more than two entities interacting together in a single event-and 3 types of negative impacts on knowledge inferred with the graph-Experimentally infeasible hypotheses, Literature-inconsistent hypotheses, and Oversimplified hypotheses explanations. We also present an indicative distribution of different types of relationships. Pairwise relationships are an essential component in representation frameworks for knowledge discovery. However, only 20% of discoveries are perfectly represented with pairwise relationships alone. 73% require a combination of pairwise relationships and nested relationships. The remaining 7% are represented with pairwise relationships, nested relationships, and hypergraphs.

conclusionWe argue that the standard entity pair-based knowledge graph, while essential for representing basic binary relations, results in important limitations for comprehensive biological knowledge representation and impacts downstream tasks such as proposing meaningful discoveries in LBD. These limitations can be mitigated by integrating more semantically complex knowledge representation strategies, including capturing collective interactions and allowing for nested entities. The use of more sophisticated knowledge representation will benefit biological fields with more expressive knowledge graphs. Downstream tasks, such as LBD, can benefit from richer representations as well, allowing for generation of implicit knowledge discoveries and explanations for disease diagnosis, treatment, and mechanism that are more biologically meaningful.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseKnowledge DiscoveryPublicationsHumansAlzheimer’s DiseaseHypergraphKnowledge graphKnowledge representationLink predictionLiterature-based DiscoveryNested relationshipPairwise relationshipSwanson’s ABC model

Identifiers

PMID40114255
PMCPMC11924609

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.