↓ Skip to main content

Integrating phenotype ontologies with PhenomeNET

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Integrating phenotype ontologies with PhenomeNET
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13326-017-0167-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miguel Ángel Rodríguez-García, Georgios V. Gkoutos, Paul N. Schofield, Robert Hoehndorf

Abstract

Integration and analysis of phenotype data from humans and model organisms is a key challenge in building our understanding of normal biology and pathophysiology. However, the range of phenotypes and anatomical details being captured in clinical and model organism databases presents complex problems when attempting to match classes across species and across phenotypes as diverse as behaviour and neoplasia. We have previously developed PhenomeNET, a system for disease gene prioritization that includes as one of its components an ontology designed to integrate phenotype ontologies. While not applicable to matching arbitrary ontologies, PhenomeNET can be used to identify related phenotypes in different species, including human, mouse, zebrafish, nematode worm, fruit fly, and yeast. Here, we apply the PhenomeNET to identify related classes from two phenotype and two disease ontologies using automated reasoning. We demonstrate that we can identify a large number of mappings, some of which require automated reasoning and cannot easily be identified through lexical approaches alone. Combining automated reasoning with lexical matching further improves results in aligning ontologies. PhenomeNET can be used to align and integrate phenotype ontologies. The results can be utilized for biomedical analyses in which phenomena observed in model organisms are used to identify causative genes and mutations underlying human disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Researcher 7 18%
Other 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 18%
Engineering 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 6 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,558,031
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#212
of 367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,664
of 441,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 367 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 441,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.