↓ Skip to main content

Linking rare and common disease: mapping clinical disease-phenotypes to ontologies in therapeutic target validation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 365)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
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
Linking rare and common disease: mapping clinical disease-phenotypes to ontologies in therapeutic target validation
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13326-016-0051-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sirarat Sarntivijai, Drashtti Vasant, Simon Jupp, Gary Saunders, A. Patrícia Bento, Daniel Gonzalez, Joanna Betts, Samiul Hasan, Gautier Koscielny, Ian Dunham, Helen Parkinson, James Malone

Abstract

The Centre for Therapeutic Target Validation (CTTV - https://www.targetvalidation.org/) was established to generate therapeutic target evidence from genome-scale experiments and analyses. CTTV aims to support the validity of therapeutic targets by integrating existing and newly-generated data. Data integration has been achieved in some resources by mapping metadata such as disease and phenotypes to the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO). Additionally, the relationship between ontology descriptions of rare and common diseases and their phenotypes can offer insights into shared biological mechanisms and potential drug targets. Ontologies are not ideal for representing the sometimes associated type relationship required. This work addresses two challenges; annotation of diverse big data, and representation of complex, sometimes associated relationships between concepts. Semantic mapping uses a combination of custom scripting, our annotation tool 'Zooma', and expert curation. Disease-phenotype associations were generated using literature mining on Europe PubMed Central abstracts, which were manually verified by experts for validity. Representation of the disease-phenotype association was achieved by the Ontology of Biomedical AssociatioN (OBAN), a generic association representation model. OBAN represents associations between a subject and object i.e., disease and its associated phenotypes and the source of evidence for that association. The indirect disease-to-disease associations are exposed through shared phenotypes. This was applied to the use case of linking rare to common diseases at the CTTV. EFO yields an average of over 80 % of mapping coverage in all data sources. A 42 % precision is obtained from the manual verification of the text-mined disease-phenotype associations. This results in 1452 and 2810 disease-phenotype pairs for IBD and autoimmune disease and contributes towards 11,338 rare diseases associations (merged with existing published work [Am J Hum Genet 97:111-24, 2015]). An OBAN result file is downloadable at http://sourceforge.net/p/efo/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/src/efoassociations/. Twenty common diseases are linked to 85 rare diseases by shared phenotypes. A generalizable OBAN model for association representation is presented in this study. Here we present solutions to large-scale annotation-ontology mapping in the CTTV knowledge base, a process for disease-phenotype mining, and propose a generic association model, 'OBAN', as a means to integrate disease using shared phenotypes. EFO is released monthly and available for download at http://www.ebi.ac.uk/efo/.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Netherlands 2 2%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 80 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 25%
Computer Science 18 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 7 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 17 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,387,647
of 24,878,531 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#29
of 365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,904
of 306,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,878,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 306,367 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 87% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.