4.6 Review

Assessing the practice of biomedical ontology evaluation: Gaps and opportunities

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 1-13

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.02.010

关键词

Ontology evaluation; Biomedical ontologies; Knowledge representation; Quality assurance

资金

  1. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health [R01 LM011829]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R01 AI130460]
  3. National Institutes of Health BD2K program [U01 HG009454]
  4. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [U24 CA194215]
  5. Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) [RP160015]
  6. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UUTR001427]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the proliferation of heterogeneous health care data in the last three decades, biomedical ontologies and controlled biomedical terminologies play a more and more important role in knowledge representation and management, data integration, natural language processing, as well as decision support for health information systems and biomedical research. Biomedical ontologies and controlled terminologies are intended to assure interoperability. Nevertheless, the quality of biomedical ontologies has hindered their applicability and subsequent adoption in real-world applications. Ontology evaluation is an integral part of ontology development and maintenance. In the biomedicine domain, ontology evaluation is often conducted by third parties as a quality assurance (or auditing) effort that focuses on identifying modeling errors and inconsistencies. In this work, we first organized four categorical schemes of ontology evaluation methods in the existing literature to create an integrated taxonomy. Further, to understand the ontology evaluation practice in the biomedicine domain, we reviewed a sample of 200 ontologies from the National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) BioPortal the largest repository for biomedical ontologies and observed that only 15 of these ontologies have documented evaluation in their corresponding inception papers. We then surveyed the recent quality assurance approaches for biomedical ontologies and their use. We also mapped these quality assurance approaches to the ontology evaluation criteria. It is our anticipation that ontology evaluation and quality assurance approaches will be more widely adopted in the development life cycle of biomedical ontologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据