Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2015; 54(01): 56-64
DOI: 10.3414/ME13-02-0026
Focus Theme – Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Prioritising Lexical Patterns to Increase Axiomatisation in Biomedical Ontologies

The Role of Localisation and Modularity
M. Quesada-Martínez
1   Departamento de Informática y Sistemas, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain
,
J. T. Fernández-Breis
1   Departamento de Informática y Sistemas, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain
,
R. Stevens
2   School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
,
E. Mikroyannidi
2   School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 17 June 2013

accepted: 07 May 2014

Publication Date:
22 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Introduction: This article is part of the Focus Theme of Methods of Information in Medicine on “Managing Interoperability and Complexity in Health Systems”.

Objectives: In previous work, we have defined methods for the extraction of lexical patterns from labels as an initial step towards semi-automatic ontology enrichment methods. Our previous findings revealed that many biomedical ontologies could benefit from enrichment methods using lexical patterns as a starting point. Here, we aim to identify which lexical patterns are appropriate for ontology enrichment, driving its analysis by metrics to prioritised the patterns.

Methods: We propose metrics for suggesting which lexical regularities should be the starting point to enrich complex ontologies. Our method determines the relevance of a lexical pattern by measuring its locality in the ontology, that is, the distance between the classes associated with the pattern, and the distribution of the pattern in a certain module of the ontology. The methods have been applied to four significant biomedical ontologies including the Gene Ontology and SNOMED CT.

Results: The metrics provide information about the engineering of the ontologies and the relevance of the patterns. Our method enables the suggestion of links between classes that are not made explicit in the ontology. We propose a prioritisation of the lexical patterns found in the analysed ontologies.

Conclusions: The locality and distribution of lexical patterns offer insights into the further engineering of the ontology. Developers can use this information to improve the axiomatisation of their ontologies.

Keywords

Biological ontologies - ontology enrichment - quality assurance - lexical patterns
 

  • References

  • 1 Stroetman V, Kalra D, Lewalle P, Rector A, Rodrigues J, Stroetman K. et al. Semantic interoperability for better health and safer health- care [34 pages]. 2009. Available from. http:// www.semantichealth.org/DELIVERABLES/ SemanticHEALTH_D1_1_finalC.pdf.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Studer R, Benjamins VR, Fensel D. Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data & knowledge engineering 1998; 25 (01) 161-197.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Machado CM, Rebholz-Schuhmann D, Freitas AT, Couto FM. The semantic web in translational medicine: current applications and future directions. Brief Bioinform 2013 Nov 6; bbt079.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Noy NF, Shah NH, Whetzel PL, Dai B, Dorf M, Griffith N. et al. BioPortal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the click of a mouse. Nucleic Acids Res 2009; 37 0Web Server issue W170-W173.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Third A. “Hidden semantics”: what can we learn from the names in an ontology?. Utica, IL, USA: 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Buitelaar P, Cimiano P, Magnini B. editors Ontology Learning from Text. Methods, Evaluation and Applications. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Liu K, Hogan WR, Crowley RS. Methodological Review: Natural Language Processing Methods and Systems for Biomedical Ontology Learning. J of Biomedical Informatics 2011; 44 (01) 163-179.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Liu K, Mitchell KJ, Chapman WW, Savova GK, Sioutos N, Rubin DL. et al. Formative Evaluation of Ontology Learning Methods for Entity Discovery by Using Existing Ontologies as Reference Standards. Methods Inf Med 2013; 52 (04) 308-316.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Navigli R, Velardi P. Structural semantic interconnections: a knowledge-based approach to word sense disambiguation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 2005; 27 (07) 1075-1086.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Friedman C, Borlawsky T, Shagina L, Xing HR, Lussier YA. Bio-Ontologies and Text: Bridging the Modeling Gap Between. Bioinformatics 2006; 22 (19) 2421-2429.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hearst MA. Automatic Acquisition of Hyponyms from Large Text Corpora. Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 2. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics; 1992: 539-545.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Liu K, Chapman WW, Savova G, Chute CG, Sioutos N, Crowley RS. Effectiveness of Lexico-syntactic Pattern Matching for Ontology Enrichment with Clinical Documents. Methods Inf Med 2010; 50 (05) 397-407.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM. et al. Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics 2000; 25 (01) 25-29.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bada M, Hunter L. Enrichment of OBO ontologies. J Biomed Inform 2007; 40 (03) 300-315.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mungall CJ, Bada M, Berardini TZ, Deegan J, Ireland A, Harris MA. et al. Cross-product extensions of the Gene Ontology. Journal Biomed Inform 2011; 44 (01) 80-86.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Quesada-Martínez M, Fernández-Breis JT, Stevens R. Extraction and analysis of the structure of labels in biomedical ontologies. Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Managing interoperability and compleXity in health systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2012: 7-16.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Rector AL, Brandt S, Schneider T. Getting the foot out of the pelvis: modeling problems affecting use of SNOMED CT hierarchies in practical applications. JAMIA 2011; 18 (04) 432-440.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rector A, Iannone L. Lexically suggest, logically define: Quality assurance of the use of qualifiers and expected results of post-coordination in SNOMED CT. J Biomed Inform 2012; 45 (02) 199-209.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mikroyannidi E, Iannone L, Stevens R, Rector A. Inspecting regularities in ontology design using clustering. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on The semantic web - Volume Part I. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2011: 438-453.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Poveda-Villalón M, Suárez-Figueroa MC, Gómez-Pérez A. Validating Ontologies with OOPS! In. Teije A, ten Völker J, Handschuh S, Stuckenschmidt H, d’Acquin M, Nikolov A. et al. editors Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2012: 267-281.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Lozano-Tello A, Gomez-Perez A. ONTOMETRIC: A Method to Choose the Appropriate Ontology. Journal of Database Management 2004; 15 (02) 1-18.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tartir S, Arpinar IB, Moore M, Sheth AP, Aleman-meza B. OntoQA: Metric-based ontology quality analysis. IEEE Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition from Distributed, Autonomous, Semantically Heterogeneous Data and Knowledge Sources. 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 23 García J, García-Peñalvo FJ, Therón R. A Survey on Ontology Metrics. In. Lytras MD, Pablos POD, Ziderman A, Roulstone A, Maurer H, Imber JB. editors Knowledge Management, Information Systems, E-Learning, and Sustainability Research. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. [cited 2013 Nov 22] 22-27.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Pesquita C, Faria D, Falcão AO, Lord P, Couto FM. Semantic Similarity in Biomedical Ontologies. PLoS Comput Biol 2009; 5 (07) e1000443.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Quesada-Martínez M, Fernandez-Breis JT, Stevens R. Enrichment of OWL Ontologies: a method for defining axioms from labels. In. Moss L, Sleeman D. editors Proceedings of the International Workshop on Capturing and Refining Knowledge in the Medical Domain (KMED’2012). Galway, Ireland: 2012: 5-10.
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Rada R, Mili H, Bicknell E, Blettner M. Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 1989; 19 (01) 17-30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lord PW, Stevens RD, Brass A, Goble CA. Investigating semantic similarity measures across the Gene Ontology: the relationship between sequence and annotation. Bioinformatics 2003; 19 (10) 1275-1283.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gentleman R. Visualizing and distances using GO. URL. http://www bioconductor org/docs/ vignettes html 2005
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Legaz-García M del C, Martínez-Costa C, Menárguez-Tortosa M, Fernández-Breis JT. Recommendation of standardized health learning contents using archetypes and semantic web technologies. Studies in health technology and informatics 2012; 180: 963-967.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C, Bard J, Bug W, Ceusters W. et al. The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nature Biotechnology 2007; 25 (11) 1251-1255.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Egaña M, Rector A, Stevens R, Antezana E. Applying Ontology Design Patterns in Bio-ontologies. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Knowledge Engineering: Practice and Patterns [Internet]. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2008. [cited 2012 Apr 17] 7-16. Available from. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87696-0_4.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ferreira JD, Hastings J, Couto FM. Exploiting disjointness axioms to improve semantic similarity measures. Bioinformatics: 2013. Sep 3 btt491.
    Google Scholar