↓ Skip to main content

An ontology-driven tool for structured data acquisition using Web forms

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An ontology-driven tool for structured data acquisition using Web forms
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13326-017-0133-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael S. Gonçalves, Samson W. Tu, Csongor I. Nyulas, Michael J. Tierney, Mark A. Musen

Abstract

Structured data acquisition is a common task that is widely performed in biomedicine. However, current solutions for this task are far from providing a means to structure data in such a way that it can be automatically employed in decision making (e.g., in our example application domain of clinical functional assessment, for determining eligibility for disability benefits) based on conclusions derived from acquired data (e.g., assessment of impaired motor function). To use data in these settings, we need it structured in a way that can be exploited by automated reasoning systems, for instance, in the Web Ontology Language (OWL); the de facto ontology language for the Web. We tackle the problem of generating Web-based assessment forms from OWL ontologies, and aggregating input gathered through these forms as an ontology of "semantically-enriched" form data that can be queried using an RDF query language, such as SPARQL. We developed an ontology-based structured data acquisition system, which we present through its specific application to the clinical functional assessment domain. We found that data gathered through our system is highly amenable to automatic analysis using queries. We demonstrated how ontologies can be used to help structuring Web-based forms and to semantically enrich the data elements of the acquired structured data. The ontologies associated with the enriched data elements enable automated inferences and provide a rich vocabulary for performing queries.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Professor 3 8%
Unspecified 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 15 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Unspecified 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,452,494
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#234
of 363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,457
of 320,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 363 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.