ArticleArXiv2025
Desiderata for a biomedical knowledge network: opportunities, challenges and future Directions.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Knowledge graphs, collectively as a knowledge network, have become critical tools for knowledge discovery in computable and explainable knowledge systems. Due to the semantic and structural complexities of biomedical data, these knowledge graphs need to enable dynamic reasoning over large evolving graphs and support fit-for-purpose abstraction, while establishing standards, preserving provenance and enforcing policy constraints for actionable discovery. A recent meeting of leading scientists discussed the opportunities, challenges and future directions of a biomedical knowledge network. Here we present six desiderata inspired by the meeting: (1) inference and reasoning in biomedical knowledge graphs need domain-centric approaches; (2) harmonized and accessible standards are required for knowledge graph representation and metadata; (3) robust validation of biomedical knowledge graphs needs multi-layered, context-aware approaches that are both rigorous and scalable; (4) the evolving and synergistic relationship between knowledge graphs and large language models is essential in empowering AI-driven biomedical discovery; (5) integrated development environments, public repositories, and governance frameworks are essential for secure and reproducible knowledge graph sharing; and (6) robust validation, provenance, and ethical governance are critical for trustworthy biomedical knowledge graphs. Addressing these key issues will be essential to realize the promises of a biomedical knowledge network in advancing biomedicine.
Identifiers
41040799PMC12486061What 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.