Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Biomed Semantics. 2011 Aug 9;2 Suppl 4:S3. doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-2-S4-S3. Epub 2011 Aug 9.

Anatomy ontologies and potential users: bridging the gap.

Author information

  • 1EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD, UK. raven@ebi.ac.uk.

Abstract

MOTIVATION:

To evaluate how well current anatomical ontologies fit the way real-world users apply anatomy terms in their data annotations.

METHODS:

Annotations from three diverse multi-species public-domain datasets provided a set of use cases for matching anatomical terms in two major anatomical ontologies (the Foundational Model of Anatomy and Uberon), using two lexical-matching applications (Zooma and Ontology Mapper).

RESULTS:

Approximately 1500 terms were identified; Uberon/Zooma mappings provided 286 matches, compared to the control and Ontology Mapper returned 319 matches. For the Foundational Model of Anatomy, Zooma returned 312 matches, and Ontology Mapper returned 397.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results indicate that for our datasets the anatomical entities or concepts are embedded in user-generated complex terms, and while lexical mapping works, anatomy ontologies do not provide the majority of terms users supply when annotating data. Provision of searchable cross-products for compositional terms is a key requirement for using ontologies.

PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk