PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14734310

Shared relationship analysis: ranking set cohesion and commonalities within a literature-derived relationship network.

Jonathan D Wren·Harold R Garner
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

MOTIVATION: There is a general scientific need to be able to identify and evaluate what any given set of 'objects' (e.g. genes, phenotypes, chemicals, diseases) has in common. Whether it is to classify, expand upon or identify commonalities and functional groupings, informational needs can be diverse and the best source to identify relationships among a potentially heterogeneous set of objects is the scientific literature. RESULTS: We first establish a network of related objects by their co-occurrence within MEDLINE records. A set of objects within this network can then be queried to identify shared relationships, and a method is presented to score their statistical relevance by comparing observed frequencies with what would be expected in a random network model. Using Gene Ontology (GO) categories, we demonstrate that this method enables a quantitative ranking of the 'cohesiveness' of a set of objects and, importantly, allows other objects related to this set to be identified and evaluated for their 'cohesion' to it. Supplemental information: A list of ranked genes related to each GO category analyzed can be found at http://innovation.swmed.edu/IRIDESCENT/GO_relationships.htm

Explore related subjects

Abstracting and IndexingAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceDatabase Management SystemsDatabases, GeneticInformation Storage and RetrievalMEDLINENatural Language ProcessingPattern Recognition, AutomatedPeriodicals as TopicTerminology as TopicEvaluation StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan D Wren, Harold R Garner. 2004-01-22. Shared relationship analysis: ranking set cohesion and commonalities within a literature-derived relationship network.. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics%2Fbtg390

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

A comparative evaluation of full-text, concept-based, and context-sensitive search.

OBJECTIVES: Study comparatively (1) concept-based search, using documents pre-indexed by a conceptual hierarchy; (2) context-sensitive search, using structured, labeled documents; and (3) traditional full-text search. Hypotheses were: (1) more contexts lead to better retrieval accuracy; and (2) adding concept-based search to the other searches would improve upon their baseline performances. DESIGN: Use our Vaidurya architecture, for search and retrieval evaluation, of structured documents classified by a conceptual hierarchy, on a clinical guidelines test collection. MEASUREMENTS: Precision computed at different levels of recall to assess the contribution of the retrieval methods. Comparisons of precisions done with recall set at 0.5, using t-tests. RESULTS: Performance increased monotonically with the number of query context elements. Adding context-sensitive elements, mean improvement was 11.1% at recall 0.5. With three contexts, mean query precision was 42% +/- 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31% to 53%); with two contexts, 32% +/- 13% (95% CI, 27% to 38%); and one context, 20% +/- 9% (95% CI, 15% to 24%). Adding context-based queries to full-text queries monotonically improved precision beyond the 0.4 level of recall. Mean improvement was 4.5% at recall 0.5. Adding concept-based search to full-text search improved precision to 19.4% at recall 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated usefulness of concept-based and context-sensitive queries for enhancing the precision of retrieval from a digital library of semi-structured clinical guideline documents. Concept-based searches outperformed free-text queries, especially when baseline precision was low. In general, the more ontological elements used in the query, the greater the resulting precision.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2007

Improvements to the Red List Index.

The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings. Two additional advantages of the revisions are that assessment errors are not propagated through time, and the overall level extinction risk can be determined as well as trends in this over time.

Abstracting and Indexing↗