↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacogenomic knowledge representation, reasoning and genome-based clinical decision support based on OWL 2 DL ontologies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Pharmacogenomic knowledge representation, reasoning and genome-based clinical decision support based on OWL 2 DL ontologies
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0130-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Samwald, Jose Antonio Miñarro Giménez, Richard D Boyce, Robert R Freimuth, Klaus-Peter Adlassnig, Michel Dumontier

Abstract

Every year, hundreds of thousands of patients experience treatment failure or adverse drug reactions (ADRs), many of which could be prevented by pharmacogenomic testing. However, the primary knowledge needed for clinical pharmacogenomics is currently dispersed over disparate data structures and captured in unstructured or semi-structured formalizations. This is a source of potential ambiguity and complexity, making it difficult to create reliable information technology systems for enabling clinical pharmacogenomics. We developed Web Ontology Language (OWL) ontologies and automated reasoning methodologies to meet the following goals: 1) provide a simple and concise formalism for representing pharmacogenomic knowledge, 2) finde errors and insufficient definitions in pharmacogenomic knowledge bases, 3) automatically assign alleles and phenotypes to patients, 4) match patients to clinically appropriate pharmacogenomic guidelines and clinical decision support messages and 5) facilitate the detection of inconsistencies and overlaps between pharmacogenomic treatment guidelines from different sources. We evaluated different reasoning systems and test our approach with a large collection of publicly available genetic profiles. Our methodology proved to be a novel and useful choice for representing, analyzing and using pharmacogenomic data. The Genomic Clinical Decision Support (Genomic CDS) ontology represents 336 SNPs with 707 variants; 665 haplotypes related to 43 genes; 22 rules related to drug-response phenotypes; and 308 clinical decision support rules. OWL reasoning identified CDS rules with overlapping target populations but differing treatment recommendations. Only a modest number of clinical decision support rules were triggered for a collection of 943 public genetic profiles. We found significant performance differences across available OWL reasoners. The ontology-based framework we developed can be used to represent, organize and reason over the growing wealth of pharmacogenomic knowledge, as well as to identify errors, inconsistencies and insufficient definitions in source data sets or individual patient data. Our study highlights both advantages and potential practical issues with such an ontology-based approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Master 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 23 27%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 17 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Engineering 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,480,546
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#167
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,887
of 256,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 256,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.