↓ Skip to main content

Tackling the challenges of matching biomedical ontologies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Tackling the challenges of matching biomedical ontologies
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13326-017-0170-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Faria, Catia Pesquita, Isabela Mott, Catarina Martins, Francisco M. Couto, Isabel F. Cruz

Abstract

Biomedical ontologies pose several challenges to ontology matching due both to the complexity of the biomedical domain and to the characteristics of the ontologies themselves. The biomedical tracks in the Ontology Matching Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) have spurred the development of matching systems able to tackle these challenges, and benchmarked their general performance. In this study, we dissect the strategies employed by matching systems to tackle the challenges of matching biomedical ontologies and gauge the impact of the challenges themselves on matching performance, using the AgreementMakerLight (AML) system as the platform for this study. We demonstrate that the linear complexity of the hash-based searching strategy implemented by most state-of-the-art ontology matching systems is essential for matching large biomedical ontologies efficiently. We show that accounting for all lexical annotations (e.g., labels and synonyms) in biomedical ontologies leads to a substantial improvement in F-measure over using only the primary name, and that accounting for the reliability of different types of annotations generally also leads to a marked improvement. Finally, we show that cross-references are a reliable source of information and that, when using biomedical ontologies as background knowledge, it is generally more reliable to use them as mediators than to perform lexical expansion. We anticipate that translating traditional matching algorithms to the hash-based searching paradigm will be a critical direction for the future development of the field. Improving the evaluation carried out in the biomedical tracks of the OAEI will also be important, as without proper reference alignments there is only so much that can be ascertained about matching systems or strategies. Nevertheless, it is clear that, to tackle the various challenges posed by biomedical ontologies, ontology matching systems must be able to efficiently combine multiple strategies into a mature matching approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 24%
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 23 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,534,048
of 23,035,022 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#70
of 365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,895
of 473,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,035,022 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 365 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 473,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.