↓ Skip to main content

SORTA: a system for ontology-based re-coding and technical annotation of biomedical phenotype data

Overview of attention for article published in Database: The Journal of Biological Databases & Curation, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
SORTA: a system for ontology-based re-coding and technical annotation of biomedical phenotype data
Published in
Database: The Journal of Biological Databases & Curation, September 2015
DOI 10.1093/database/bav089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chao Pang, Annet Sollie, Anna Sijtsma, Dennis Hendriksen, Bart Charbon, Mark de Haan, Tommy de Boer, Fleur Kelpin, Jonathan Jetten, Joeri K. van der Velde, Nynke Smidt, Rolf Sijmons, Hans Hillege, Morris A. Swertz

Abstract

There is an urgent need to standardize the semantics of biomedical data values, such as phenotypes, to enable comparative and integrative analyses. However, it is unlikely that all studies will use the same data collection protocols. As a result, retrospective standardization is often required, which involves matching of original (unstructured or locally coded) data to widely used coding or ontology systems such as SNOMED CT (clinical terms), ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease) and HPO (Human Phenotype Ontology). This data curation process is usually a time-consuming process performed by a human expert. To help mechanize this process, we have developed SORTA, a computer-aided system for rapidly encoding free text or locally coded values to a formal coding system or ontology. SORTA matches original data values (uploaded in semicolon delimited format) to a target coding system (uploaded in Excel spreadsheet, OWL ontology web language or OBO open biomedical ontologies format). It then semi- automatically shortlists candidate codes for each data value using Lucene and n-gram based matching algorithms, and can also learn from matches chosen by human experts. We evaluated SORTA's applicability in two use cases. For the LifeLines biobank, we used SORTA to recode 90 000 free text values (including 5211 unique values) about physical exercise to MET (Metabolic Equivalent of Task) codes. For the CINEAS clinical symptom coding system, we used SORTA to map to HPO, enriching HPO when necessary (315 terms matched so far). Out of the shortlists at rank 1, we found a precision/recall of 0.97/0.98 in LifeLines and of 0.58/0.45 in CINEAS. More importantly, users found the tool both a major time saver and a quality improvement because SORTA reduced the chances of human mistakes. Thus, SORTA can dramatically ease data (re)coding tasks and we believe it will prove useful for many more projects.Database URL: http://molgenis.org/sorta or as an open source download from http://www.molgenis.org/wiki/SORTA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 26%
Researcher 16 23%
Other 8 11%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 14 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 13%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Database: The Journal of Biological Databases & Curation
#831
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,266
of 284,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Database: The Journal of Biological Databases & Curation
#25
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.