Cargando…

Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks

BACKGROUND: Using knowledge representation for biomedical projects is now commonplace. In previous work, we represented the knowledge found in a college-level biology textbook in a fashion useful for answering questions. We showed that embedding the knowledge representation and question-answering ab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chaudhri, Vinay K, Elenius, Daniel, Goldenkranz, Andrew, Gong, Allison, Martone, Maryann E, Webb, William, Yorke-Smith, Neil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4362633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25785183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-5-51
_version_ 1782361829553471488
author Chaudhri, Vinay K
Elenius, Daniel
Goldenkranz, Andrew
Gong, Allison
Martone, Maryann E
Webb, William
Yorke-Smith, Neil
author_facet Chaudhri, Vinay K
Elenius, Daniel
Goldenkranz, Andrew
Gong, Allison
Martone, Maryann E
Webb, William
Yorke-Smith, Neil
author_sort Chaudhri, Vinay K
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Using knowledge representation for biomedical projects is now commonplace. In previous work, we represented the knowledge found in a college-level biology textbook in a fashion useful for answering questions. We showed that embedding the knowledge representation and question-answering abilities in an electronic textbook helped to engage student interest and improve learning. A natural question that arises from this success, and this paper’s primary focus, is whether a similar approach is applicable across a range of life science textbooks. To answer that question, we considered four different textbooks, ranging from a below-introductory college biology text to an advanced, graduate-level neuroscience textbook. For these textbooks, we investigated the following questions: (1) To what extent is knowledge shared between the different textbooks? (2) To what extent can the same upper ontology be used to represent the knowledge found in different textbooks? (3) To what extent can the questions of interest for a range of textbooks be answered by using the same reasoning mechanisms? RESULTS: Our existing modeling and reasoning methods apply especially well both to a textbook that is comparable in level to the text studied in our previous work (i.e., an introductory-level text) and to a textbook at a lower level, suggesting potential for a high degree of portability. Even for the overlapping knowledge found across the textbooks, the level of detail covered in each textbook was different, which requires that the representations must be customized for each textbook. We also found that for advanced textbooks, representing models and scientific reasoning processes was particularly important. CONCLUSIONS: With some additional work, our representation methodology would be applicable to a range of textbooks. The requirements for knowledge representation are common across textbooks, suggesting that a shared semantic infrastructure for the life sciences is feasible. Because our representation overlaps heavily with those already being used for biomedical ontologies, this work suggests a natural pathway to include such representations as part of the life sciences curriculum at different grade levels.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4362633
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43626332015-03-18 Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks Chaudhri, Vinay K Elenius, Daniel Goldenkranz, Andrew Gong, Allison Martone, Maryann E Webb, William Yorke-Smith, Neil J Biomed Semantics Research BACKGROUND: Using knowledge representation for biomedical projects is now commonplace. In previous work, we represented the knowledge found in a college-level biology textbook in a fashion useful for answering questions. We showed that embedding the knowledge representation and question-answering abilities in an electronic textbook helped to engage student interest and improve learning. A natural question that arises from this success, and this paper’s primary focus, is whether a similar approach is applicable across a range of life science textbooks. To answer that question, we considered four different textbooks, ranging from a below-introductory college biology text to an advanced, graduate-level neuroscience textbook. For these textbooks, we investigated the following questions: (1) To what extent is knowledge shared between the different textbooks? (2) To what extent can the same upper ontology be used to represent the knowledge found in different textbooks? (3) To what extent can the questions of interest for a range of textbooks be answered by using the same reasoning mechanisms? RESULTS: Our existing modeling and reasoning methods apply especially well both to a textbook that is comparable in level to the text studied in our previous work (i.e., an introductory-level text) and to a textbook at a lower level, suggesting potential for a high degree of portability. Even for the overlapping knowledge found across the textbooks, the level of detail covered in each textbook was different, which requires that the representations must be customized for each textbook. We also found that for advanced textbooks, representing models and scientific reasoning processes was particularly important. CONCLUSIONS: With some additional work, our representation methodology would be applicable to a range of textbooks. The requirements for knowledge representation are common across textbooks, suggesting that a shared semantic infrastructure for the life sciences is feasible. Because our representation overlaps heavily with those already being used for biomedical ontologies, this work suggests a natural pathway to include such representations as part of the life sciences curriculum at different grade levels. BioMed Central 2014-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4362633/ /pubmed/25785183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-5-51 Text en © Chaudhri et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. 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.
spellingShingle Research
Chaudhri, Vinay K
Elenius, Daniel
Goldenkranz, Andrew
Gong, Allison
Martone, Maryann E
Webb, William
Yorke-Smith, Neil
Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks
title Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks
title_full Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks
title_short Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks
title_sort comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4362633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25785183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-5-51
work_keys_str_mv AT chaudhrivinayk comparativeanalysisofknowledgerepresentationandreasoningrequirementsacrossarangeoflifesciencestextbooks
AT eleniusdaniel comparativeanalysisofknowledgerepresentationandreasoningrequirementsacrossarangeoflifesciencestextbooks
AT goldenkranzandrew comparativeanalysisofknowledgerepresentationandreasoningrequirementsacrossarangeoflifesciencestextbooks
AT gongallison comparativeanalysisofknowledgerepresentationandreasoningrequirementsacrossarangeoflifesciencestextbooks
AT martonemaryanne comparativeanalysisofknowledgerepresentationandreasoningrequirementsacrossarangeoflifesciencestextbooks
AT webbwilliam comparativeanalysisofknowledgerepresentationandreasoningrequirementsacrossarangeoflifesciencestextbooks
AT yorkesmithneil comparativeanalysisofknowledgerepresentationandreasoningrequirementsacrossarangeoflifesciencestextbooks