English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives To contrast the coverage of diseases between the Disease Ontology (DO) and SNOMED CT, and to compare the hierarchical structure of the two ontologies. Methods We establish a reference list of mappings. We characterize unmapped concepts in DO semantically and structurally. Finally, we compare the hierarchical structure between the two ontologies. Results Overall, 4478 (65%) the 6931 DO concepts are mapped to SNOMED CT. The cancer and neoplasm subtrees of DO account for many of the unmapped concepts. The most frequent differentiae in unmapped concepts include morphology (for cancers and neoplasms), specific subtypes (for rare genetic disorders), and anatomical subtypes. Unmapped concepts usually form subtrees, and less often correspond to isolated leaves or intermediary concepts. Conclusion This detailed analysis of the gaps in coverage and structural differences between DO and SNOMED CT contributes to the interoperability between these two ontologies and will guide further validation of the mapping.

Interoperability of Disease Concepts in Clinical and Research Ontologies: Contrasting Coverage and Structure in the Disease Ontology and SNOMED CT