Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[bioontology-support] inconsistent issues between BioPortal and MeSH

Eugene eugene at nextbio.com
Fri Oct 15 16:50:41 PDT 2010


Natasha,

>From your view, do you think introducing union of two sets is correct or incorrect? After merging those two set, "chest pain" (yesterday's example) become one of the Analysis technique. From our view, that's incorrect. In addition, that's not consistent with either UMLS MeSH or official site of MeSH. 

The purpose that we use BioPortal is we don't need to process each raw format of ICD-9, SnoMed CT, MeSH, etc. However, if the MeSH in BioPortal is not consistent with the official version of MeSH, it introduces fundamental problem to us.

I don't know how many cases like that in the BioPortal. Could you talk to the team and see if they want to fix the problem? We hope it can be fixed.

Thanks

Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: Natasha F. Noy [mailto:noy at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 4:36 PM
To: Eugene
Cc: support at bioontology.org; nigam at stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [bioontology-support] inconsistent issues between BioPortal and MeSH

I think I understood your question correctly. What I was saying was that BioPortal cannot distinguish the two sets of children that show up in different subtrees on the NIH site. In other words, what you will see as children of "Neoplasm, Experimental" would be the union of these two sets of children. And indeed that is what you see in
BioPortal:




More information about the bioontology-support mailing list