=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2032/oaei17_paper15
|storemode=property
|title=YAM-BIO: results for OAEI 2017
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2032/oaei17_paper15.pdf
|volume=Vol-2032
|authors=Amina Annane,Zohra Bellahsene,Faical Azouaou,Clement Jonquet
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/semweb/AnnaneBAJ17
}}
==YAM-BIO: results for OAEI 2017==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2032/oaei17_paper15.pdf
YAM-BIO – Results for OAEI 2017
Amina Annane,1,2 Zohra Bellahsene, and1 Faical Azouaou,2
Clement Jonquet1,3
1
Laboratory of Informatics, Robotics and Microelectronics of Montpellier (LIRMM)
University of Montpellier & CNRS, France
{annane,jonquet,bella}@lirmm.fr
2
National Higher School of Informatics (ESI), Algiers, Algeria
{f azouaou}@esi.dz
3
Center for BioMedical Informatics Research (BMIR), Stanford University, USA
Abstract. The YAM-BIO ontology alignment system is an extension
of YAM++ but dedicated to aligning biomedical ontologies. YAM++
has successfully participated in several editions of the Ontology Align-
ment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) between 2011 and 2013, but this is
the first participation of YAM-BIO. The biomedical extension includes a
new component that uses existing mappings between multiple biomedi-
cal ontologies as background knowledge. In this short system paper, we
present YAM-BIO’s workflow and the results obtained in the Anatomy
and Large Biomedical Ontologies tracks of the OAEI 2017 campaign.
1 Presentation of the YAM-BIO system
1.1 State, purpose, general statement
YAM-BIO may be seen as an extension of YAM++ [5] that uses existing map-
pings between multiple biomedical ontologies as background knowledge to en-
hance the matching results. The latest version of YAM++, which we reused in
YAM-BIO, obtained excellent results in multiple Ontology Alignment Evaluation
Initiative (OAEI) campaigns, especially in 2013 [11]. YAM++ did not partici-
pate more since then. Four years on from the last participation, our objective
this year was to establish a comparison between the potential performance of
a bio-customized YAM++, and state-of-the-art systems in matching biomedical
ontologies.
Over last OAEI campaigns, state-of-the-art systems such as AML [7] and
LogMapBio [9] used specialized background knowledge to improve their re-
sults. More generally, the use of background knowledge –or indirect matching
techniques– as recently allowed to obtain better results. YAM-BIO is an equiv-
alent evolution of YAM++ in which we added a component that uses existing
mappings as background knowledge. With YAM-BIO, we participated this year
to the Anatomy and Large Biomedical Ontologies (Largebio) tracks.
1.2 YAM-BIO’s general alignment worklfow
As illustrated in Fig. 1, YAM-BIO’s workflow contains three main steps: First, to
compute direct matching between source and target ontologies using YAM++.
2
Second, to compose relevant existing mappings in the background knowledge for
concepts not aligned during first step. Third, to compute union of the alignments
produced by the two previous steps.
Direct matching with YAM++: Annotations (labels, comments, etc.)
and structures of source and target ontologies are indexed as well as the context
of each entity that may be a concept or a property. Then, candidate mappings
with a low annotation similarity are pre-filtered. Other advanced lexical and
structural similarity measures are applied on the remaining candidate mappings,
before updating their similarity scores using the structure information of source
and target ontologies. Finally, a threshold is dynamically computed to select the
most relevant mapping candidates. For more details on each steps of the execu-
tion of YAM++, readers may refer to [5].
Indirect matching and union: During this step YAM-BIO finds map-
pings for the concepts that have not been matched during direct matching with
YAM++. First, background knowledge existing mappings are loaded in a list of
lists noted A as follows:
1. Identifiers of all concepts in the background knowledge are added to A. The
identifier of a given concept is the last part of its URI, for example the
identifier of the concept that has the URI http://mouse.owl#MA 0000031
is MA 0000031.
2. Each element x of A points to a list that contains identifiers of all concepts
matched to x in the background knowledge.
Then, for each source concept y that is not matched yet, YAM-BIO checks if
y’s identifier exists in A. If yes, YAM-BIO gets the corresponding list –pointed
by y– and for each element of this list, YAM-BIO verifies if itself points to a
list that contains a concept identifier from the target ontology. If so, YAM-BIO
derives a new mapping and adds it to the alignment produced previously by the
direct matching.
1.3 Adaptations made for the OAEI campaign
The existing mappings used as background knowledge have been extracted from
Uberon [10] and the Human Disease Ontology (DOID) [13]. These ontologies
contain several manually edited/curated cross references to other biomedical
ontologies that we may consider as mappings.
In addition, concept identifiers of the ontologies provided for the Largebio
track are not the original ones, but have been replaced by their standardized
preferred labels. For this reason, we have used the NCBO BioPortal’s REST
API [6] to replace concept identifiers within Uberon and DOID by their stan-
dardized preferred labels.
1.4 Availability
YAM++ has now a publicly accessible online prototype version [16] and is reg-
istered on Maven repositories: http://yamplusplus.lirmm.fr. YAM-BIO has not
been packaged yet to be reused by others. However, the alignment set produced
3
Source Target Existing
ontology ontology mappings
2.Mappings
1.YAM++
composition
Not-matched
source concepts
Alignment 1 3.Union Alignment 2
Final alignment
Fig. 1. YAM-BIO’s general workflow
as well as the background knowledge file are available at the following link:
https://goo.gl/zNznNz
2 Results
2.1 Anatomy track
The Anatomy track consists of finding an alignment between the Adult Mouse
Anatomy [8] (2744 classes) and a subset of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Thesaurus [14] (3304 classes) describing human anatomy. Table 1 shows YAM-
BIO’s evaluation result and runtime on this track. YAM-BIO scored in second
position among the 12 systems that have participated in 2017 with almost the
same precision and a slightly lower recall comparing to the top ranked system.
Table 1. YAM-BIO’s Anatomy track results
Test set Precision Recall F-Score Time (s)
Anatomy 0.948 0.922 0.935 70
2.2 Large Biomedical Ontologies (Largebio) track
The Largebio track consists of respective finding alignments between the Foun-
dational Model of Anatomy (FMA) [12], SNOMED-CT [4], and the NCI The-
saurus. There are six tasks with different input ontology sizes: small fragment,
large fragment and whole ontologies. Table 2 shows YAM-BIO’s evaluation re-
4
sults and runtime on those tasks. With the exception of the XMAP system4 ,
YAM-BIO is the top ranked system in Task 1 and Task 4 and obtained almost
the same results as the best system in Task 3 with an F-measure of 0.834 vs
0.835. In Task 2 and Task 6, YAM-BIO scored in second position with a better
recall than the best system and a lower precision. In Task 5, it shared third
position with LogMapBio. In terms of running time, YAM-BIO completed the
different tasks in acceptable time.
Table 2. YAM-BIO’s LargeBio track results
Test set Precision Recall F-Score Time (s)
Task 1: Small fragments FMA-NCI 0.968 0.896 0.931 56
Task 2: FMA Whole-NCI Whole 0.816 0.888 0.850 279
Task 3: Small fragments FMA-SNOMED 0.966 0.733 0.834 60
Task 4: FMA Whole-SNOMED Large fragment 0.887 0.728 0.800 468
Task 5: Small fragments SNOMED-NCI 0.899 0.677 0.772 2202
Task 6: SNOMED Large fragment-NCI Whole 0.827 0.698 0.757 490
3 Discussion
3.1 Comments on the results and ways of improvement
YAM-BIO scored second position in the Anatomy track and scored first or second
also in the Largebio track (except Task 5). As expected, using existing mappings
as background knowledge has improved YAM++ results in terms of recall and
consequently F-measure. Mapping compositions extracted from Uberon allowed
YAM-BIO to discover non trivial mappings, specifically in Anatomy track and
in Task 1 and Task 2 of Largebio track. Similarly, the composition of mappings
extracted from DOID allowed to increase the recall of Task 5 and Task 6. How-
ever, the incoherence analysis shows that YAM-BIO returns some incoherent
mappings. This may be explained by the fact that the mappings derived us-
ing background knowledge have been added to the final alignment without any
semantic verification.
In our current system, mappings derived using background knowledge are
not post-filtered and semantically verified as in YAM++. A simple union of the
direct and indirect alignments is performed to obtain the final alignment. In the
future, our goal would be to integrate the use of background knowledge directly
inside YAM++’s internal architecture which, we believe, will improve coherence
of the final results. More specifically, we will implement the approach proposed
in [1].
In addition, we are aware of the importance of the dynamic selection of
ontologies to use as background knowledge [15, 2]. Indeed, from the selected on-
tologies we may extract manual/automatic mappings as background knowledge.
For this reason, we will extend YAM-BIO to dynamically select a set of ontolo-
4
We note XMAP uses UMLS Metathesaurus as background knowledge, which is the
same from which Largebio reference alignments are extracted.
5
gies from a given ontology library such as the NCBO BioPortal or Watson [3],
if we want to go beyond biomedicine.
3.2 Comments on the OAEI evaluation
When possible, we think it would be interesting to publish participants results
with and without use of specialized background knowledge. On one hand, this
will allow to better evaluate the influence of background knowledge in matching
quality and running time. On the other hand, this will allow a fair comparison
with systems that do not use background knowledge.
Some components are common in all ontology matching system architectures;
others do not always exist —such as background knowledge selection or semantic
verification. This makes the comparison of running time executions particularly
cumbersome and not always fair. According to us, it would be more appropriate
to evaluate execution times for each separate component. For example, YAM-
BIO used a predefined background knowledge while LogMapBio made a dynamic
selection from an online repository necessarily taking additional time. Splitting
running time by components will also help the community to identify less efficient
components to improve them, and most efficient ones to reuse them.
4 Conclusion
In 2017 YAM-BIO participated in two tracks: Anatomy and LargeBio. The re-
sults obtained in those tracks are very close to top ranked state-of-the-art sys-
tems, thanks to different content matching techniques implemented in YAM++
and to the use of background knowledge. Due to the high heterogeneity of on-
tologies, we believe that an advanced generic (i.e., not restricted to biomedicine)
module that selects and uses background knowledge should be implemented in
the internal architecture of YAM++ to improve its results. In the future, we will
work on such a module and hopefully participate in different OAEI tracks.
5 Acknowledgment
This work was done during a LIRMM-ESI collaboration within the Semantic
Indexing of French biomedical Resources (grant ANR-12-JS02-01001) and Prac-
tikPharma (ANR-15-CE23-0028) projects that received funding from the French
National Research Agency as well as by the European H2020 Marie Sklodowska-
Curie action (agreement No 701771), the University of Montpellier and the
CNRS. The authors also acknowledge the Eiffel Excellence Scholarship program.
References
1. Annane Amina, Bellahsene Zohra, Azouaou Faical, and Jonquet Clement. Selec-
tion and combination of heterogeneous mappings to enhance biomedical ontology
matching. In 20th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowl-
edge Management, EKAW, Bologna, Italy, pages 19–33, 2016.
2. Faria Daniel, Pesquita Catia, Santos Emanuel, Cruz Isabel F, and Couto Francisco
M. Automatic background knowledge selection for matching biomedical ontologies.
PloS One, 9(11):e111226, 2014.
3. d’Aquin Mathieu, Gridinoc Laurian, Angeletou Sofia, Sabou Marta, and Motta
Enrico. Watson: A Gateway for Next Generation Semantic Web Applications. In
6
6th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC, Poster and Demonstration,
Busan, Korea, pages 11–15, 2007.
4. Kevin Donnelly. SNOMED-CT: The advanced terminology and coding system for
eHealth. Studies in health technology and informatics, 121:279, 2006.
5. Ngo DuyHoa and Bellahsene Zohra. Overview of YAM++:(not) yet another
matcher for ontology alignment task. Journal of Web Semantics, 41:30 – 49, 2016.
6. Noy Natalya F, Shah Nigam H, Whetzel Patricia L, Dai Benjamin, Dorf Michael,
Griffith Nicholas, Jonquet Clement, Rubin Daniel L, Storey Margaret-Anne, and
Chute Christopher G. BioPortal: ontologies and integrated data resources at the
click of a mouse. Nucleic Acids Research, 37:170–173, 2009.
7. Daniel Faria, Catia Pesquita, Booma S Balasubramani, Catarina Martins, Joao
Cardoso, Hugo Curado, Francisco M Couto, and Isabel F Cruz. Oaei 2016 results
of AML. In 11th International Workshop on Ontology Matching, Kobe, Japan.,
pages 138–145, 2016.
8. Terry F. Hayamizu, Mary Mangan, John P. Corradi, James A. Kadin, and Martin
Ringwald. The adult mouse anatomical dictionary: a tool for annotating and
integrating data. Genome Biology, 6(3):R29, Feb 2005.
9. E Jiménez-Ruiz, B Cuenca Grau, and V Cross. Logmap family participation in the
oaei 2016. In 11th International Workshop on Ontology Matching, Kobe, Japan.,
pages 185–189, 2016.
10. Christopher J. Mungall, Carlo Torniai, Georgios V. Gkoutos, Suzanna E. Lewis,
and Melissa A. Haendel. Uberon, an integrative multi-species anatomy ontology.
Genome Biology, 13(1):R5, Jan 2012.
11. DuyHoa Ngo and Zohra Bellahsene. YAM++ results for OAEI 2013. In 8th
International Workshop on Ontology Matching, Sydney, Australia., pages 211–218,
2013.
12. Cornelius Rosse and Jos L.V. Mejino. A reference ontology for biomedical infor-
matics: the foundational model of anatomy. Journal of Biomedical Informatics,
36(6):478 – 500, 2003. Unified Medical Language System.
13. Lynn Marie Schriml, Cesar Arze, Suvarna Nadendla, Yu-Wei Wayne Chang, Mark
Mazaitis, Victor Felix, Gang Feng, and Warren Alden Kibbe. Disease ontology: a
backbone for disease semantic integration. Nucleic Acids Research, 40(D1):D940–
D946, 2012.
14. Nicholas Sioutos, Sherri de Coronado, Margaret W. Haber, Frank W. Hartel, Wen-
Ling Shaiu, and Lawrence W. Wright. NCI thesaurus: A semantic model inte-
grating cancer-related clinical and molecular information. Journal of Biomedical
Informatics, 40(1):30 – 43, 2007. Bio*Medical Informatics.
15. Chen Xi, Xia Weiguo, Jiménez-Ruiz Ernesto, and Cross Valerie. Extending an
ontology alignment system with BioPortal: a preliminary analysis. In 13th Inter-
national Semantic Web Conference, ISWC, Posters and Demonstrations, Riva del
Garda, Italy, pages 313–316, 2014.
16. Bellahsene Zohra, Emonet Vincent, Ngo DuyHoa, and Todorov Konstantin.
Yam++ online: a multi-task platform for ontology and thesaurus matching. In
14th Extended Semantic Web Conference, ESWC, Posters and Demonstrations,
Portoroz, Slovenia, 2017.