The use of foundational ontologies in biomedical research

The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of biomedical semantics Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 21 - 14
Main Authors Bernabé, César H., Queralt-Rosinach, Núria, Silva Souza, Vítor E., Bonino da Silva Santos, Luiz Olavo, Mons, Barend, Jacobsen, Annika, Roos, Marco
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BioMed Central Ltd 11.12.2023
BioMed Central
BMC
Subjects
Analysis
Biological Ontologies
Biomedical ontologies
Biomedical Research
Cell cycle
Controlled vocabularies
Data analysis
Empirical analysis
FAIR
Formal method
Foundational ontologies
Information management
Interoperability
Maintainability
Mapping
Medical research
Medicine, Experimental
Metadata
Methods
Ontology
Research methodology
Review
Systematic literature mapping
Technology application
Terminology
Vocabulary, Controlled
Brazil
FAIR
Systematic literature mapping
Biomedical ontologies
Foundational ontologies
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Abstract The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages. From a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers). Our findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.
AbstractList Background The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages. Results From a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers). Conclusion Our findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged. Keywords: Systematic literature mapping, Foundational ontologies, FAIR, Biomedical ontologies
Abstract Background The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages. Results From a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers). Conclusion Our findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.
The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages.BACKGROUNDThe FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages.From a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers).RESULTSFrom a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers).Our findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.CONCLUSIONOur findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.
BackgroundThe FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages.ResultsFrom a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers).ConclusionOur findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.
The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages. From a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers). Our findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.
The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages. From a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers). Our findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.
ArticleNumber 21
Audience Academic
Author Bonino da Silva Santos, Luiz Olavo
Roos, Marco
Bernabé, César H.
Silva Souza, Vítor E.
Jacobsen, Annika
Mons, Barend
Queralt-Rosinach, Núria
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: César H.
  surname: Bernabé
  fullname: Bernabé, César H.
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Núria
  surname: Queralt-Rosinach
  fullname: Queralt-Rosinach, Núria
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Vítor E.
  surname: Silva Souza
  fullname: Silva Souza, Vítor E.
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Luiz Olavo
  surname: Bonino da Silva Santos
  fullname: Bonino da Silva Santos, Luiz Olavo
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Barend
  surname: Mons
  fullname: Mons, Barend
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Annika
  surname: Jacobsen
  fullname: Jacobsen, Annika
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Marco
  surname: Roos
  fullname: Roos, Marco
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38082345$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp9kk9vFSEUxYmpsbX2C7gwk7hxM_XyH1amadQ2aeKmrgnDwHu8zBsqzJi0n176pq19jREWkMu5P3LgvEUHYxo9Qu8xnGKsxOeCKSWiBUJbAArQ3r1CRwQYbjFTcPBsf4hOStlAHZRiUPQNOqQKFKGMHyF9vfbNXHyTQhPSPPZ2imm0Q5PGKQ1pFX1p4th0MW19H109yL54m936HXod7FD8ycN6jH5--3p9ftFe_fh-eX521Tou2NRy7SjtJfNUaUEYaKwk65jXygrCudOSB8462oegmNLUSky99dB3gikpLD1Glwu3T3ZjbnLc2nxrko1mV0h5ZWyeohu8sULxXoEEJgXTTisJTnCmiVIuuC5U1peFdTN31Y_z45TtsAfdPxnj2qzSb4NBYgJUVMKnB0JOv2ZfJrONxflhsKNPczFEA9FMak2q9OML6SbNub7tosKEaM7_qla2OohjSPVidw81Z1KKakUpqKrTf6jq7P02upqMEGt9r-HDc6dPFh9_vgrUInA5lZJ9MC5Ou8-v5DhUx-Y-Z2bJmak5M7ucmbvaSl60PtL_0_QHf-DQ9w
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1093_database_baaf003
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12859_024_05993_2
crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare13010010
crossref_primary_10_1162_dint_a_00236
Cites_doi 10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_32
10.1186/s13326-022-00264-6
10.1093/database/baab069
10.1007/978-3-540-87696-0_4
10.1038/nbt1346
10.1007/978-0-387-34847-6_3
10.1002/widm.1408
10.3233/SHTI210116
10.1186/2041-1480-6-2
10.3233/AO-2008-0057
10.1162/dint_a_00040
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.015
10.1006/knac.1993.1008
10.1186/2041-1480-2-S2-S6
10.1186/1471-2105-11-289
10.1186/s13326-017-0169-2
10.19026/rjaset.6.3684
10.1093/nar/gkp440
10.1186/2041-1480-5-27
10.1093/bib/bbt079
10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.237
10.1186/s13326-022-00263-7
10.1186/s13326-019-0196-2
10.1093/nar/gkh036
10.1093/bib/bbl027
10.3233/SW-210447
10.1145/505168.505170
10.1186/2041-1480-4-42
10.1162/dint_r_00024
10.1016/S0169-023X(97)00056-6
10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_14
10.1371/journal.pone.0048603
10.1007/978-3-642-37437-1_20
10.1371/journal.pone.0061425
10.1186/s12911-021-01729-x
10.3233/ao-210256
10.1038/sdata.2016.18
10.1007/3-540-63438-X_8
10.1007/978-3-030-13693-2_11
10.1093/bioinformatics/btl266
10.1016/j.is.2020.101568
10.1371/journal.pone.0022006
10.1016/j.is.2018.11.009
10.1007/11762256_13
10.1016/j.jbi.2012.01.004
10.1093/bioinformatics/btu322
10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8_5
10.1186/2041-1480-5-4
10.1207/s15427633scc0401_5
10.1016/j.jbi.2010.05.001
10.3233/AO-150157
10.1007/978-3-642-30574-0_27
10.1007/978-3-642-21034-1_22
10.1093/bib/bbv011
10.1145/3417990.3421414
10.1186/s13326-016-0068-y
10.1007/978-3-319-54627-8_5
10.1093/nar/gkq1078
10.4018/jismd.2010040101
10.1186/2041-1480-5-14
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2023. The Author(s).
COPYRIGHT 2023 BioMed Central Ltd.
2023. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
The Author(s) 2023
Copyright_xml – notice: 2023. The Author(s).
– notice: COPYRIGHT 2023 BioMed Central Ltd.
– notice: 2023. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
– notice: The Author(s) 2023
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
3V.
7X7
7XB
88E
8FE
8FG
8FH
8FI
8FJ
8FK
ABJCF
ABUWG
AFKRA
AZQEC
BBNVY
BENPR
BGLVJ
BHPHI
CCPQU
DWQXO
FYUFA
GHDGH
GNUQQ
HCIFZ
K9.
L6V
LK8
M0S
M1P
M7P
M7S
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PJZUB
PKEHL
PPXIY
PQEST
PQGLB
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
PTHSS
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.1186/s13326-023-00300-z
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
ProQuest Central (Corporate)
Health & Medical Collection
ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
Medical Database (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest SciTech Collection
ProQuest Technology Collection
ProQuest Natural Science Journals
Hospital Premium Collection
Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
Materials Science & Engineering Collection
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
ProQuest Central Essentials - QC
Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central
Technology Collection
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
ProQuest One
ProQuest Central
Proquest Health Research Premium Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Central Student
SciTech Premium Collection
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Engineering Collection
Biological Sciences
Health & Medical Collection (Alumni)
Medical Database
Biological Science Database
Engineering Database
ProQuest Central Premium
ProQuest One Academic (New)
ProQuest Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest One Health & Nursing
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
Engineering Collection
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest Central Student
Technology Collection
ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
SciTech Premium Collection
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest One Health & Nursing
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences
ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection
ProQuest Engineering Collection
Health Research Premium Collection
Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition)
Natural Science Collection
ProQuest Central Korea
Health & Medical Research Collection
Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central (New)
ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni)
Engineering Collection
Engineering Database
ProQuest Biological Science Collection
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Hospital Collection
ProQuest Technology Collection
Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
Biological Science Database
ProQuest SciTech Collection
ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni)
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
ProQuest Medical Library
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
Materials Science & Engineering Collection
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic (New)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList

MEDLINE - Academic
Publicly Available Content Database

MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 4
  dbid: 8FG
  name: ProQuest Technology Collection
  url: https://search.proquest.com/technologycollection1
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Languages & Literatures
EISSN 2041-1480
EndPage 14
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_a685d807047649c9870c6549288cfcbf
PMC10712036
A776047880
38082345
10_1186_s13326_023_00300_z
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
Review
GeographicLocations Brazil
GeographicLocations_xml – name: Brazil
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: Horizon 2020
  grantid: 825575
GroupedDBID 0R~
53G
5VS
7X7
88E
8FE
8FG
8FH
8FI
8FJ
AAFWJ
AAJSJ
AASML
AAYXX
ABDBF
ABJCF
ABUWG
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACIWK
ACPRK
ACUHS
ADBBV
ADRAZ
ADUKV
AEGXH
AENEX
AFKRA
AFPKN
AHBYD
AHYZX
AIAGR
ALIPV
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMKLP
AMTXH
AOIJS
BAPOH
BAWUL
BBNVY
BCNDV
BENPR
BFQNJ
BGLVJ
BHPHI
BMC
BPHCQ
BVXVI
C6C
CCPQU
CITATION
DIK
E3Z
EBD
EBLON
EBS
ESX
F5P
FYUFA
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
HCIFZ
HMCUK
HYE
IAO
IEA
IHR
INH
INR
ITC
KQ8
L6V
LK8
M1P
M48
M7P
M7S
ML~
M~E
O5R
O5S
OK1
PGMZT
PHGZM
PHGZT
PIMPY
PQQKQ
PROAC
PSQYO
PTHSS
RBZ
RNS
ROL
RPM
RSV
SMT
SOJ
TUS
UKHRP
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
PJZUB
PPXIY
PQGLB
PUEGO
PMFND
3V.
7XB
8FK
AZQEC
DWQXO
GNUQQ
K9.
PKEHL
PQEST
PQUKI
PRINS
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c564t-59c33d74e389624091874b4e98a6255c975f54b3dff84893a713eae0db64876a3
IEDL.DBID DOA
ISSN 2041-1480
IngestDate Wed Aug 27 01:29:07 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 21 18:35:45 EDT 2025
Thu Jul 10 18:21:09 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 25 10:27:48 EDT 2025
Tue Jun 17 22:25:12 EDT 2025
Tue Jun 10 21:15:27 EDT 2025
Thu Aug 28 04:24:59 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:59:41 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 03:54:48 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Keywords FAIR
Systematic literature mapping
Biomedical ontologies
Foundational ontologies
Language English
License 2023. The Author(s).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c564t-59c33d74e389624091874b4e98a6255c975f54b3dff84893a713eae0db64876a3
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
OpenAccessLink https://doaj.org/article/a685d807047649c9870c6549288cfcbf
PMID 38082345
PQID 2902122955
PQPubID 2040220
PageCount 14
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_a685d807047649c9870c6549288cfcbf
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10712036
proquest_miscellaneous_2902947992
proquest_journals_2902122955
gale_infotracmisc_A776047880
gale_infotracacademiconefile_A776047880
pubmed_primary_38082345
crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s13326_023_00300_z
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13326_023_00300_z
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2023-12-11
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2023-12-11
PublicationDate_xml – month: 12
  year: 2023
  text: 2023-12-11
  day: 11
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: England
– name: London
PublicationTitle Journal of biomedical semantics
PublicationTitleAlternate J Biomed Semantics
PublicationYear 2023
Publisher BioMed Central Ltd
BioMed Central
BMC
Publisher_xml – name: BioMed Central Ltd
– name: BioMed Central
– name: BMC
References P Burek (300_CR64) 2019; 159
300_CR29
J Barwise (300_CR63) 1977
Y He (300_CR70) 2018; 9
300_CR28
E Beisswanger (300_CR30) 2008; 3
300_CR32
300_CR76
300_CR33
300_CR77
300_CR74
300_CR31
J Hur (300_CR42) 2015; 6
300_CR75
300_CR37
300_CR34
300_CR78
300_CR35
300_CR79
J Rumbaugh (300_CR61) 2004
300_CR72
300_CR73
CM Keet (300_CR57) 2012; 45
300_CR71
L Vogt (300_CR44) 2019; 10
R Iqbal (300_CR25) 2013; 6
O Bodenreider (300_CR11) 2006; 7
TR Gruber (300_CR27) 1993; 5
M Verdonck (300_CR16) 2020; 93
300_CR38
300_CR39
G Amaral (300_CR6) 2021; 11
G Antoniou (300_CR60) 2009
300_CR87
300_CR85
300_CR86
300_CR48
300_CR89
300_CR80
R Hoehndorf (300_CR15) 2015; 16
300_CR40
300_CR84
300_CR81
300_CR82
300_CR2
300_CR1
G Guizzardi (300_CR83) 2022; 17
300_CR9
300_CR8
300_CR49
300_CR7
SE Lewis (300_CR10) 2005; 6
L Vogt (300_CR43) 2010; 11
300_CR5
300_CR4
P Burek (300_CR56) 2006; 22
300_CR3
300_CR54
300_CR55
300_CR52
300_CR53
300_CR14
300_CR58
300_CR59
300_CR12
L Vogt (300_CR45) 2012; 7
300_CR13
P Grenon (300_CR24) 2004; 4
300_CR50
C Pesquita (300_CR41) 2014; 5
300_CR51
C Trojahn (300_CR88) 2022; 13
YM Kong (300_CR62) 2011; 44
M Jensen (300_CR47) 2013; 4
300_CR18
300_CR19
R Kaliyaperumal (300_CR36) 2022; 13
300_CR17
J Röhl (300_CR46) 2014; 5
300_CR21
300_CR65
300_CR22
300_CR66
300_CR20
300_CR69
300_CR26
300_CR23
300_CR67
300_CR68
References_xml – ident: 300_CR14
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_32
– volume: 13
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2022
  ident: 300_CR36
  publication-title: J Biomed Semant.
  doi: 10.1186/s13326-022-00264-6
– ident: 300_CR26
– ident: 300_CR51
– ident: 300_CR78
– ident: 300_CR49
– ident: 300_CR80
– ident: 300_CR12
  doi: 10.1093/database/baab069
– ident: 300_CR73
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87696-0_4
– ident: 300_CR67
  doi: 10.1038/nbt1346
– ident: 300_CR74
  doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-34847-6_3
– ident: 300_CR84
– volume: 11
  start-page: 1408
  issue: 4
  year: 2021
  ident: 300_CR6
  publication-title: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Min Knowl Disc.
  doi: 10.1002/widm.1408
– ident: 300_CR54
  doi: 10.3233/SHTI210116
– volume: 6
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2015
  ident: 300_CR42
  publication-title: J Biomed Semant.
  doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-6-2
– volume: 3
  start-page: 205
  issue: 4
  year: 2008
  ident: 300_CR30
  publication-title: Appl Ontol.
  doi: 10.3233/AO-2008-0057
– ident: 300_CR17
– ident: 300_CR87
– ident: 300_CR3
  doi: 10.1162/dint_a_00040
– ident: 300_CR68
– ident: 300_CR81
  doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.015
– ident: 300_CR22
– volume: 5
  start-page: 199
  issue: 2
  year: 1993
  ident: 300_CR27
  publication-title: Knowl Acquis.
  doi: 10.1006/knac.1993.1008
– ident: 300_CR40
  doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-2-S2-S6
– volume: 11
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2010
  ident: 300_CR43
  publication-title: BMC Bioinformatics.
  doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-289
– volume: 9
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2018
  ident: 300_CR70
  publication-title: J Biomed Semant.
  doi: 10.1186/s13326-017-0169-2
– volume: 6
  start-page: 2993
  issue: 16
  year: 2013
  ident: 300_CR25
  publication-title: Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol.
  doi: 10.19026/rjaset.6.3684
– ident: 300_CR13
  doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp440
– volume: 5
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2014
  ident: 300_CR46
  publication-title: J Biomed Semant.
  doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-5-27
– ident: 300_CR53
  doi: 10.1093/bib/bbt079
– ident: 300_CR52
– volume: 159
  start-page: 784
  year: 2019
  ident: 300_CR64
  publication-title: Procedia Comput Sci.
  doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.237
– ident: 300_CR9
  doi: 10.1186/s13326-022-00263-7
– volume: 10
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2019
  ident: 300_CR44
  publication-title: J Biomed Semant.
  doi: 10.1186/s13326-019-0196-2
– ident: 300_CR7
  doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh036
– ident: 300_CR31
– volume: 7
  start-page: 256
  issue: 3
  year: 2006
  ident: 300_CR11
  publication-title: Brief Bioinform.
  doi: 10.1093/bib/bbl027
– volume-title: An introduction to first-order logic
  year: 1977
  ident: 300_CR63
– volume: 13
  start-page: 685
  issue: 4
  year: 2022
  ident: 300_CR88
  publication-title: Semant Web.
  doi: 10.3233/SW-210447
– ident: 300_CR33
  doi: 10.1145/505168.505170
– volume: 4
  start-page: 1
  year: 2013
  ident: 300_CR47
  publication-title: J Biomed Semant.
  doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-4-42
– ident: 300_CR8
  doi: 10.1162/dint_r_00024
– ident: 300_CR39
– ident: 300_CR28
  doi: 10.1016/S0169-023X(97)00056-6
– ident: 300_CR32
  doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_14
– volume: 7
  start-page: 48603
  issue: 12
  year: 2012
  ident: 300_CR45
  publication-title: PLoS ONE.
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048603
– start-page: 91
  volume-title: Harmelen Fv
  year: 2009
  ident: 300_CR60
– ident: 300_CR85
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-37437-1_20
– ident: 300_CR59
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061425
– ident: 300_CR76
  doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01729-x
– volume: 17
  start-page: 167
  issue: 1
  year: 2022
  ident: 300_CR83
  publication-title: Appl Ontol.
  doi: 10.3233/ao-210256
– ident: 300_CR2
  doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
– ident: 300_CR18
  doi: 10.1007/3-540-63438-X_8
– ident: 300_CR72
– ident: 300_CR82
– ident: 300_CR34
– ident: 300_CR86
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13693-2_11
– volume: 22
  start-page: 66
  issue: 14
  year: 2006
  ident: 300_CR56
  publication-title: Bioinformatics.
  doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl266
– volume: 93
  start-page: 101568
  year: 2020
  ident: 300_CR16
  publication-title: Inf Syst.
  doi: 10.1016/j.is.2020.101568
– ident: 300_CR50
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022006
– ident: 300_CR77
  doi: 10.1016/j.is.2018.11.009
– ident: 300_CR75
  doi: 10.1007/11762256_13
– volume: 45
  start-page: 482
  issue: 3
  year: 2012
  ident: 300_CR57
  publication-title: J Biomed Inform.
  doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2012.01.004
– volume-title: Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, The (2nd Edition)
  year: 2004
  ident: 300_CR61
– ident: 300_CR35
  doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu322
– ident: 300_CR38
– ident: 300_CR66
– ident: 300_CR19
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8_5
– volume: 5
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2014
  ident: 300_CR41
  publication-title: J Biomed Semant.
  doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-5-4
– ident: 300_CR20
– volume: 6
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 2005
  ident: 300_CR10
  publication-title: Genome Biol.
– volume: 4
  start-page: 69
  issue: 1
  year: 2004
  ident: 300_CR24
  publication-title: Spat Cogn Comput.
  doi: 10.1207/s15427633scc0401_5
– volume: 44
  start-page: 48
  issue: 1
  year: 2011
  ident: 300_CR62
  publication-title: J Biomed Inform.
  doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2010.05.001
– ident: 300_CR71
– ident: 300_CR69
– ident: 300_CR4
  doi: 10.3233/AO-150157
– ident: 300_CR1
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30574-0_27
– ident: 300_CR5
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21034-1_22
– volume: 16
  start-page: 1069
  issue: 6
  year: 2015
  ident: 300_CR15
  publication-title: Brief Bioinform.
  doi: 10.1093/bib/bbv011
– ident: 300_CR89
  doi: 10.1145/3417990.3421414
– ident: 300_CR48
  doi: 10.1186/s13326-016-0068-y
– ident: 300_CR79
  doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-54627-8_5
– ident: 300_CR37
– ident: 300_CR55
  doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq1078
– ident: 300_CR65
– ident: 300_CR58
– ident: 300_CR23
– ident: 300_CR21
  doi: 10.4018/jismd.2010040101
– ident: 300_CR29
  doi: 10.1186/2041-1480-5-14
SSID ssj0000331083
Score 2.356742
SecondaryResourceType review_article
Snippet The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled...
Background The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently...
BackgroundThe FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently...
Abstract Background The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
gale
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
StartPage 21
SubjectTerms Analysis
Biological Ontologies
Biomedical ontologies
Biomedical Research
Cell cycle
Controlled vocabularies
Data analysis
Empirical analysis
FAIR
Formal method
Foundational ontologies
Information management
Interoperability
Maintainability
Mapping
Medical research
Medicine, Experimental
Metadata
Methods
Ontology
Research methodology
Review
Systematic literature mapping
Technology application
Terminology
Vocabulary, Controlled
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: Health & Medical Collection
  dbid: 7X7
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwELagXLggniVQqlRCcEBW4_gR-4RKRVVVhROV9mbZjk0rVUlpdi_99cwk3tAIqdd4HNmel8cef0PIR4jPnE-e0yYqRwVLjnqhasqc4C1rlZPjVcyPn-r0Qpyt5CofuA05rXJrE0dD3fYBz8gPa4Ng5LWR8uvNH4pVo_B2NZfQeEyeIHQZpnQ1q2Y-Y6k4bF40376V0epwgJCsxqxbTlG8K3q38EcjbP__xvmed1pmTt5zRSfPybO8hyyPJqa_II9i95LsnueTx6H8VJ7PYMnDK2JAFMrNEMs-lWmuogQ_QOgCNH3Q5aorp4f4yLMyIwBdviYXJ99_HZ_SXDGBBqnEmkoTOG8bEWEbosBXG6y450U02kGcI4NpZJLC8zYljagzDkLU6GLVegWBi3L8Ddnp-i6-JSULQSVfaeF9EEFoH4VsgbNJea0VUwVh23WzIcOJY1WLazuGFVrZaa0trLUd19reFeTL3OdmAtN4kPobsmOmRCDs8UN_-9tmvbJOadlqsFuiUcIEA-YnKESd0zqk4FNBPiMzLaorDC-4_OoAJonAV_aoaRQCFOmqIHsLSlCzsGzeioPNaj7Yf0JZkIO5GXti6loX-81EY0RjTF2Q3Ul65ilxjRedAnrrhVwt5rxs6a4uRxBwCNsZXiK_e3hc78nTGqWdgfqxPbKzvt3ED7CNWvv9UVf-AjzTGXw
  priority: 102
  providerName: ProQuest
– databaseName: Scholars Portal Journals: Open Access
  dbid: M48
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwEB6VcuGCeJZAQUFCcECBTfyIfUCoIKoKtZxYqTfLdmxaqcqWza4E_fXMOA81ouLENfZE8bwntr8BeIX1mXXRsaIO0ha8jLZwXFZFaTlrykZakbZiTr7JoyX_eipOd2BsdzQwsLuxtKN-Usv1xbtfP39_RIP_kAxeyfcd1lkVHaVlBensori6BbcxMtVkqCdDup88M8NkRrHx7syNpLP4lGD8_3bW16LV_CTltdB0eA_uDjllftArwX3YCe0D2Dse_kR2-ev8eAJP7h6CRtXIt13IVzGPU1clfAFBGZArRJLzNu8v5pMM8wER6OwRLA-_fP98VAwdFAovJN8UQnvGmpoHTEskxm5NHfgcD1pZrHuE17WIgjvWxKgIhcZiyRpsWDROYiEjLXsMu-2qDU8gL72X0S0Ud85zz5ULXDQo6SidUrKUGZQj34wf4MWpy8WFSWWGkqbntUFem8Rrc5XB24nmsgfX-OfsTySOaSYBY6cHq_UPM9iZsVKJRqEf47Xk2mt0R14SCp1SPnoXM3hDwjSkUPh53g63EHCRBIRlDupaEmCRWmSwP5uJZufnw6M6mFFrTaUJMb_SQmTwchomSjrK1obVtp-jea11lcFerz3TkpiijU-O1GqmV7M1z0fa87MECo5lfEmbyk__B5eewZ2KbKJEoy33YXez3obnmHxt3ItkUX8A6Bwpfg
  priority: 102
  providerName: Scholars Portal
Title The use of foundational ontologies in biomedical research
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38082345
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2902122955
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2902947992
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC10712036
https://doaj.org/article/a685d807047649c9870c6549288cfcbf
Volume 14
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3Pa9swFH5s3WWX0f3qvHXBg7Edhqlt_bB0TEezEtoythVyE5Is0cJwxpxc-tf3PdsxMYPtsosDkRSsp-_p6Yuk7wG8R35mXXQsq4K0GS-izRyXZVZYzuqillZ0WzGXV_L8mi9XYrWX6ovOhPXywL3hTqxUolYITF5Jrj1S5NxLkhVTykfvIs2-GPP2yFQ3BzNctii2uyWj5EmLZKyk87YsI2Dn2d0kEnWC_X9Oy3txaXpmci8ILQ7hybB6TOf9Wz-FB6F5BkcXw3-ObfohvRhlktvnoBEE6bYN6TqmccyfhD9AogU06WGT2ybtr-DTaKWD9s_NC7henP34fJ4NuRIyLyTfZEJ7xuqKB1yASIzSmnLtOR60sshwhNeViII7VseoSG_GIjkNNuS1k0hZpGUv4aBZN-EVpIX3Mrpccec891y5wEWNYxqlU0oWMoFiZzfjByFxymfx03SEQknT29qgrU1na3OXwKexza9eRuOvtU9pOMaaJIHdfYHAMAMwzL-AkcBHGkxDjoqv5-1w3wA7SZJXZl5VkqSJVJ7A8aQmOpifFu_gYAYHb02pSRu_1EIk8G4sppZ0aK0J621fR_NK6zKBox49Y5eYoi1Ojq3VBFeTPk9LmtubTv4bCXtB28ev_4eV3sDjknyiQPcsjuFg83sb3uIya-Nm8LBaVfhUiy8zeDSfL78v8fP07Orrt1nnbfi85Ooe5iInBg
linkProvider Directory of Open Access Journals
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1Jb9UwEB6VcoALYi2BAkFiOaCoWWzHPiBUluqVvvbUSr0Z27FpJZRXmveE6I_iNzKTjUZIvfUaL4rH38x4vHwD8ArjM2ODLZLSC5OwLJjEMpEnmWFFlVXC8PYoZv9AzI7Y12N-vAZ_hrcwdK1ysImtoa4WjvbIt3JFZOS54vzD2c-EskbR6eqQQqODxZ7__QtDtub97mec39d5vvPl8NMs6bMKJI4Ltky4ckVRlcyjqxbozxRlpbPMK2kwFuBOlTxwZosqBEnMLAbDOG98WlmBi3thCuz3BtxEx5uSRpXH5binkxb4URbD2xwpthoMAXO65VskpE5pcjHxf22agP-dwSVvOL2pecn17dyFO_2aNd7uQHYP1nx9Hzbm_U5nE7-J5yM5c_MAFEIvXjU-XoQ4jFmbsAOiSiBTi01O67h7-E8YiXvGoZOHcHQtsnwE6_Wi9o8hzpwTwaaSWeuYY9J6xitEUhBWSpGJCLJBbtr19OWUReOHbsMYKXQna42y1q2s9UUE78Y2Zx15x5W1P9J0jDWJeLv9sDj_rns91kZIXkm0k6wUTDmF5s4JYrmT0gVnQwRvaTI1mQf8PWf6Vw44SCLa0ttlKYgQSaYRbE5qolq7afEAB92blUb_U4IIXo7F1JKuytV-serqKFYqlUew0aFnHFIh6WCVYWs5wdVkzNOS-vSkJR3PcC1Kh9ZPrv6vF3Brdrg_1_Pdg72ncDsn5Geo-tkmrC_PV_4ZLuGW9nmrNzF8u25F_Qs5tVSX
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+use+of+foundational+ontologies+in+biomedical+research&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+biomedical+semantics&rft.au=C%C3%A9sar+H.+Bernab%C3%A9&rft.au=N%C3%BAria+Queralt-Rosinach&rft.au=V%C3%ADtor+E.+Silva+Souza&rft.au=Luiz+Olavo+Bonino+da+Silva+Santos&rft.date=2023-12-11&rft.pub=BMC&rft.eissn=2041-1480&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=14&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs13326-023-00300-z&rft.externalDBID=DOA&rft.externalDocID=oai_doaj_org_article_a685d807047649c9870c6549288cfcbf
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2041-1480&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2041-1480&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2041-1480&client=summon