Dataset Information

Where to search top-K biomedical ontologies?

ABSTRACT: MOTIVATION:Searching for precise terms and terminological definitions in the biomedical data space is problematic, as researchers find overlapping, closely related and even equivalent concepts in a single or multiple ontologies. Search engines that retrieve ontological resources often suggest an extensive list of search results for a given input term, which leads to the tedious task of selecting the best-fit ontological resource (class or property) for the input term and reduces user confidence in the retrieval engines. A systematic evaluation of these search engines is necessary to understand their strengths and weaknesses in different search requirements. RESULT:We have implemented seven comparable Information Retrieval ranking algorithms to search through ontologies and compared them against four search engines for ontologies. Free-text queries have been performed, the outcomes have been judged by experts and the ranking algorithms and search engines have been evaluated against the expert-based ground truth (GT). In addition, we propose a probabilistic GT that is developed automatically to provide deeper insights and confidence to the expert-based GT as well as evaluating a broader range of search queries. CONCLUSION:The main outcome of this work is the identification of key search factors for biomedical ontologies together with search requirements and a set of recommendations that will help biomedical experts and ontology engineers to select the best-suited retrieval mechanism in their search scenarios. We expect that this evaluation will allow researchers and practitioners to apply the current search techniques more reliably and that it will help them to select the right solution for their daily work. AVAILABILITY:The source code (of seven ranking algorithms), ground truths and experimental results are available at https://github.com/danielapoliveira/bioont-search-benchmark.

SUBMITTER: Oliveira D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6781604 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Where to search top-K biomedical ontologies?

Oliveira Daniela D Butt Anila Sahar AS Haller Armin A Rebholz-Schuhmann Dietrich D Sahay Ratnesh R

Briefings in bioinformatics 20190701 4

<h4>Motivation</h4>Searching for precise terms and terminological definitions in the biomedical data space is problematic, as researchers find overlapping, closely related and even equivalent concepts in a single or multiple ontologies. Search engines that retrieve ontological resources often suggest an extensive list of search results for a given input term, which leads to the tedious task of selecting the best-fit ontological resource (class or property) for the input term and reduces user con ...[more]

PMID: 29579141

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages.ResultsFrom a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers).ConclusionOur findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.

Dataset Information

Where to search top-K biomedical ontologies?

Publications

Where to search top-K biomedical ontologies?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets