Dataset Information

Matching Biomedical Ontologies: Construction of Matching Clues and Systematic Evaluation of Different Combinations of Matchers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ontology matching seeks to find semantic correspondences between ontologies. With an increasing number of biomedical ontologies being developed independently, matching these ontologies to solve the interoperability problem has become a critical task in biomedical applications. However, some challenges remain. First, extracting and constructing matching clues from biomedical ontologies is a nontrivial problem. Second, it is unknown whether there are dominant matchers while matching biomedical ontologies. Finally, ontology matching also suffers from computational complexity owing to the large-scale sizes of biomedical ontologies.

Objective

To investigate the effectiveness of matching clues and composite match approaches, this paper presents a spectrum of matchers with different combination strategies and empirically studies their influence on matching biomedical ontologies. Besides, extended reduction anchors are introduced to effectively decrease the time complexity while matching large biomedical ontologies.

Methods

In this paper, atomic and composite matching clues are first constructed in 4 dimensions: terminology, structure, external knowledge, and representation learning. Then, a spectrum of matchers based on a flexible combination of atomic clues are designed and utilized to comprehensively study the effectiveness. Besides, we carry out a systematic comparative evaluation of different combinations of matchers. Finally, extended reduction anchor is proposed to significantly alleviate the time complexity for matching large-scale biomedical ontologies.

Results

Experimental results show that considering distinguishable matching clues in biomedical ontologies leads to a substantial improvement in all available information. Besides, incorporating different types of matchers with reliability results in a marked improvement, which is comparative to the state-of-the-art methods. The dominant matchers achieve F1 measures of 0.9271, 0.8218, and 0.5 on Anatomy, FMA-NCI (Foundation Model of Anatomy-National Cancer Institute), and FMA-SNOMED data sets, respectively. Extended reduction anchor is able to solve the scalability problem of matching large biomedical ontologies. It achieves a significant reduction in time complexity with little loss of F1 measure at the same time, with a 0.21% decrease on the Anatomy data set and 0.84% decrease on the FMA-NCI data set, but with a 2.65% increase on the FMA-SNOMED data set.

Conclusions

This paper systematically analyzes and compares the effectiveness of different matching clues, matchers, and combination strategies. Multiple empirical studies demonstrate that distinguishing clues have significant implications for matching biomedical ontologies. In contrast to the matchers with single clue, those combining multiple clues exhibit more stable and accurate performance. In addition, our results provide evidence that the approach based on extended reduction anchors performs well for large ontology matching tasks, demonstrating an effective solution for the problem.

SUBMITTER: Wang P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8414291 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.