2019
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40368-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative evaluation of ontology design patterns for combining pathology and anatomy ontologies

Abstract: Data are increasingly annotated with multiple ontologies to capture rich information about the features of the subject under investigation. Analysis may be performed over each ontology separately, but recently there has been a move to combine multiple ontologies to provide more powerful analytical possibilities. However, it is often not clear how to combine ontologies or how to assess or evaluate the potential design patterns available. Here we use a large and well-characterized dataset of anatomic pathology d… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
(74 reference statements)
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, our results hold true across two cross-species phenotype ontologies, Pheno-e and uPheno . Both ontologies have similar content and goals but are based on different ontology design patterns (Gkoutos et al, 2017;Alghamdi et al, 2019). We compared the two ontologies in our analyses to test whether the underlying ontology design patterns have a significant impact but we did not consistently identify significant differences between both ontologies, indicating that our results hold true independent of the choice of phenotype ontology.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…First, our results hold true across two cross-species phenotype ontologies, Pheno-e and uPheno . Both ontologies have similar content and goals but are based on different ontology design patterns (Gkoutos et al, 2017;Alghamdi et al, 2019). We compared the two ontologies in our analyses to test whether the underlying ontology design patterns have a significant impact but we did not consistently identify significant differences between both ontologies, indicating that our results hold true independent of the choice of phenotype ontology.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…First, our results hold true across two cross-species phenotype ontologies, Pheno-e and uPheno ( Matentzoglu et al, 2019 ). Both ontologies have similar content and goals but are based on different ontology design patterns ( Gkoutos et al, 2017 ; Alghamdi et al, 2019 ). We compared the two ontologies in our analyses to test whether the underlying ontology design patterns have a significant impact, but we did not consistently identify significant differences between both ontologies, indicating that our results hold true independent of the choice of phenotype ontology.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2,3 Vascular lesions were coded to the Mouse Pathology (MPATH) and Mouse Anatomy (MA) ontologies as previously described, 29,33 and anatomical location and pathological diagnoses were combined into the precomposed PAM ontology, which classifies lesions from MPATH by anatomical site using the MA ontology. 1 Overrepresentation was calculated using the Ontofunc and Func tools 14 as described previously. 1 We performed a hypergeometric test to establish the strains in which vascular lesions are overrepresented.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%