Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,560

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration

Open access
The OBI Consortium, Smith, Barry, Ashburner, Michael, Rosse, Cornelius, Bard, Jonathan, Bug, William, Ceusters, Werner, Goldberg, Louis J, Eilbeck, Karen, Ireland, Amelia, Mungall, Christopher J, Leontis, Neocles, Rocca-Serra, Philippe, Ruttenberg, Alan, Sansone, Susanna-Assunta, Scheuermann, Richard H, Shah, Nigam, Whetzel, Patricia L, Lewis, Suzanna·2007·Nature Biotechnology
DOI 10.1038/nbt1346
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt1346

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Yue, L. & Reisdorf, W.C. Pathway and ontology analysis: emerging approaches connecting transcriptome data and clinical endpoints. Curr. Mol. Med. 5, 11–21 (2005). · DOI
  2. Gene Ontology Consortium. The Gene Ontology (GO) project in 2006. Nucleic Acids Res. 34 (database issue), D322–D326 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Camon, E. et al. The Gene Ontology Annotation (GOA) Project. Genome Res. 13, 662–672 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Kohane, I.S. et al. Building national electronic medical record systems via the World Wide Web. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 3, 191–207 (1996). · DOI
  5. Bodenreider, O. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res. 32 (database issue), D267–D270 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Ceusters, W., Smith, B., Kumar, A. & Dhaen, C. Mistakes in medical ontologies: where do they come from and how can they be detected? Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 102, 145–164 (2004).
  7. Ceusters, W., Smith, B. & Goldberg, L. A terminological and ontological analysis of the NCI Thesaurus. Methods Inf. Med. 44, 498–507 (2005). · DOI
  8. Campbell, K.E., Oliver, D.E. & Shortliffe, E.H. The Unified Medical Language System. Toward a collaborative approach for solving terminologic problems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 5, 12–16 (1998). · DOI
  9. Buetow, K.H. Cyberinfrastructure: empowering a 'third way' in biomedical research. Science 308, 821–824 (2005). · DOI
  10. Smith, B. & Ceusters, W. HL7 RIM: an incoherent standard. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 124, 133–138 (2006).
  11. Ashburner, M., Mungall, C.J. & Lewis, S.E. Ontologies for biologists: a community model for the annotation of genomic data. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 68, 227–236 (2003). · DOI
  12. Rubin, D.L. et al. National Center for Biomedical Ontology: advancing biomedicine through structured organization of scientific knowledge. OMICS 10, 185–198 (2006). · DOI
  13. Rosse, C. & Mejino, J.L.F. The Foundational Model of Anatomy ontology. In Anatomy Ontologies for Bioinformatics (eds. Burger, A. et al.) (Springer, New York, in the press).
  14. Haendel, M. et al. CARO: the Common Anatomy Reference Ontology. In Anatomy Ontologies for Bioinformatics (eds. Burger, A. et al.) (Springer, New York, in the press).
  15. Leontis, N.B. et al. The RNA Ontology Consortium: an open invitation to the RNA community. RNA 12, 533–541 (2006). · DOI
  16. Natale, D.A. et al. Framework for a protein ontology. BMC Bioinformatics [online] (in the press).
  17. Kelso, J. et al. eVOC: a controlled vocabulary for unifying gene expression data. Genome Res. 13, 1222–1230 (2003). · DOI
  18. Mabee, P.M. et al. Phenotype ontologies: the bridge between genomics and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 345–350 (2007). · DOI
  19. Whetzel, P.L. et al. The MGED Ontology: a resource for semantics-based description of microarray experiments. Bioinformatics 22, 866–873 (2006). · DOI
  20. Whetzel, P.L. et al. Development of FuGO: an ontology for functional genomics investigations. OMICS 10, 199–204 (2006). · DOI
  21. Golbreic, C. et al. OBO and OWL: leveraging semantic web technologies for the life sciences. In Proceedings 6th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2007), (Springer, in the press).
  22. Brinkley, J.F., Detwiler, L.T., Gennari, J.H., Rosse, C. & Suciu, D. A framework for using reference ontologies as a foundation for the semantic web. Proc. AMIA Fall Symposium, 2006, 95–100.
  23. Lacy, L.W. Owl: Representing Information Using the Web Ontology Language (Trafford Publishing, Victoria, BC, Canada, 2005).
  24. Smith, B., Köhler, J. & Kumar, A. On the application of formal principles to life science data: a case study in the Gene Ontology. Data Integration in the Life Sciences (DILS) Workshop 2004, 79–94. · DOI
  25. Smith, B. et al. Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biol. [online] 6, R46 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Bittner, T. & Goldberg, L.J. Spatial location and its relevance for terminological inferences in bio-ontologies. BMC Bioinformatics 23, 1674–1682 (2007). · DOI
  27. Ramírez, M.J. et al. Linking of digital images to phylogenetic data matrices using a morphological ontology. Syst. Biol. 56, 283–294 (2007). · DOI
  28. Schober, D., et al. Towards naming conventions for use in controlled vocabulary and ontology engineering. Bio-Ontologies Workshop, ISMB/ECCB, Vienna, 20 July 2007, 87–90.
  29. Ruttenberg, A., Rees, J., & Zucker, J. What BioPAX communicates and how to extend OWL to help it. OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop Series < http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/acceptedLong/submission_26.pdf > (2006).
  30. Hunter, L. & Bada. M. Enrichment of OBO ontologies. J. Biomed. Inform. 40, 300–315 (2007). · DOI
  31. Hill, D.P., Blake, J.A., Richardson, J.E. & Ringwald, M. Extension and integration of the Gene Ontology (GO): combining GO vocabularies with external vocabularies. Genome Res. 12, 1982–1991 (2002). · DOI
  32. Mungall, C.J. Obol: integrating language and meaning in bio-ontologies. Comp. Funct. Genomics 5, 509–520 (2004). · DOI
  33. Camon, E. et al. The Gene Ontology Annotation (GOA) Database: sharing knowledge in Uniprot with Gene Ontology. Nucleic Acids Res. 32 (database issue), D262–D266 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  34. Blake, J., Hill, D.P. & Smith, B. Gene Ontology annotations: what they mean and where they come from. Bio-Ontologies Workshop, ISMB/ECCB, Vienna, 20 July 2007, 79–82.
  35. Sjoblom, T. et al. The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 314, 268–274 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  36. Lee, J.A. et al. Components of the antigen processing and presentation pathway revealed by gene expression microarray analysis following B cell antigen receptor (BCR) stimulation. BMC Bioinformatics [online] 7, 237 (2006). · DOI
  37. Rebholz-Schuhmann, D., Kirsch, H. & Couto, F. Facts from text—is text mining ready to deliver? PLoS Biol. [online] 3, e65 (2005). · DOI
  38. Witte, R., Kappler, T. & Baker, C.J.O. Ontology design for biomedical text mining. In Semantic Web: Revolutionizing Knowledge Discovery in the Life Sciences (eds. Baker C.J.O. & Cheung, K.-H.) 281–313 (Springer, New York, 2007). · DOI
  39. Zhang, S. & Bodenreider, O. Aligning multiple anatomical ontologies through a reference. International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM 2006) 193–197 (2006).
  40. Luo, F. et al. Modular organization of protein interaction networks. Bioinformatics 23, 207–214 (2007). · DOI
  41. Martone, M.E., Gupta, A. & Ellisman, M.H. E-neuroscience: challenges and triumphs in integrating distributed data from molecules to brains. Nat. Neurosci. 7, 467–472 (2004). · DOI
  42. Fong, L. et al. An ontology-driven knowledge environment for subcellular neuroanatomy. OWL Experiences and Directions, 3rd International Workshop, Innsbruck, Austria, June 6–7, 2007 (in the press).
  43. Brazma, A. et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—toward standards for microarray data. Nat. Genet. 29, 365–371 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  44. Sansone, S.A. et al. A strategy capitalizing on synergies: the Reporting Structure for Biological Investigation (RSBI) working group. OMICS 10, 164–171 (2006). · DOI
  45. Grenon, P., Smith, B. & Goldberg, L. Biodynamic ontology: applying BFO in the biomedical domain. In Ontologies in Medicine (ed. Pisanelli, D.M.) 20–38 (IOS, Amsterdam, 2004).

Cited by

See all 2,560

Metadata

Authors
The OBI Consortium, Smith, B., Ashburner, M., Rosse, C., Bard, J., Bug, W., Ceusters, W., Goldberg, L. J., Eilbeck, K., Ireland, A., Mungall, C. J., Leontis, N., Rocca-Serra, P., Ruttenberg, A., Sansone, S.-A., Scheuermann, R. H., Shah, N., Whetzel, P. L., & Lewis, S.
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007-11
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
1251-1255
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
DOI
10.1038/nbt1346
OpenAlex
W2113142309
Cited by
2,560
References
2
FWCI
53.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nbt1346
The paper
The OBI Consortium, Smith, B., Ashburner, M., Rosse, C., Bard, J., Bug, W., Ceusters, W., Goldberg, L. J., Eilbeck, K., Ireland, A., Mungall, C. J., Leontis, N., Rocca-Serra, P., Ruttenberg, A., Sansone, S.-A., Scheuermann, R. H., Shah, N., Whetzel, P. L., & Lewis, S. (2007). The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nature Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1346

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.