The use of foundational ontologies in biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: The FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages. RESULTS: From a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers). CONCLUSION: Our findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.

Towards FAIRification of sensitive and fragmented rare disease patient data: challenges and solutions in European reference network registries.

INTRODUCTION: Rare disease patient data are typically sensitive, present in multiple registries controlled by different custodians, and non-interoperable. Making these data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) for humans and machines at source enables federated discovery and analysis across data custodians. This facilitates accurate diagnosis, optimal clinical management, and personalised treatments. In Europe, twenty-four European Reference Networks (ERNs) work on rare disease registries in different clinical domains. The process and the implementation choices for making data FAIR ('FAIRification') differ among ERN registries. For example, registries use different software systems and are subject to different legal regulations. To support the ERNs in making informed decisions and to harmonise FAIRification, the FAIRification steward team was established to work as liaisons between ERNs and researchers from the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases. RESULTS: The FAIRification steward team inventoried the FAIRification challenges of the ERN registries and proposed solutions collectively with involved stakeholders to address them. Ninety-eight FAIRification challenges from 24 ERNs' registries were collected and categorised into "training" (31), "community" (9), "modelling" (12), "implementation" (26), and "legal" (20). After curating and aggregating highly similar challenges, 41 unique FAIRification challenges remained. The two categories with the most challenges were "training" (15) and "implementation" (9), followed by "community" (7), and then "modelling" (5) and "legal" (5). To address all challenges, eleven types of solutions were proposed. Among them, the provision of guidelines and the organisation of training activities resolved the "training" challenges, which ranged from less-technical "coffee-rounds" to technical workshops, from informal FAIR Games to formal hackathons. Obtaining implementation support from technical experts was the solution type for tackling the "implementation" challenges. CONCLUSION: This work shows that a dedicated team of FAIR data stewards is an asset for harmonising the various processes of making data FAIR in a large organisation with multiple stakeholders. Additionally, multi-levelled training activities are required to accommodate the diverse needs of the ERNs. Finally, the lessons learned from the experience of the FAIRification steward team described in this paper may help to increase FAIR awareness and provide insights into FAIRification challenges and solutions of rare disease registries.

Applying the FAIR principles to data in a hospital: challenges and opportunities in a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged healthcare systems and research worldwide. Data is collected all over the world and needs to be integrated and made available to other researchers quickly. However, the various heterogeneous information systems that are used in hospitals can result in fragmentation of health data over multiple data 'silos' that are not interoperable for analysis. Consequently, clinical observations in hospitalised patients are not prepared to be reused efficiently and timely. There is a need to adapt the research data management in hospitals to make COVID-19 observational patient data machine actionable, i.e. more Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) for humans and machines. We therefore applied the FAIR principles in the hospital to make patient data more FAIR. RESULTS: In this paper, we present our FAIR approach to transform COVID-19 observational patient data collected in the hospital into machine actionable digital objects to answer medical doctors' research questions. With this objective, we conducted a coordinated FAIRification among stakeholders based on ontological models for data and metadata, and a FAIR based architecture that complements the existing data management. We applied FAIR Data Points for metadata exposure, turning investigational parameters into a FAIR dataset. We demonstrated that this dataset is machine actionable by means of three different computational activities: federated query of patient data along open existing knowledge sources across the world through the Semantic Web, implementing Web APIs for data query interoperability, and building applications on top of these FAIR patient data for FAIR data analytics in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our work demonstrates that a FAIR research data management plan based on ontological models for data and metadata, open Science, Semantic Web technologies, and FAIR Data Points is providing data infrastructure in the hospital for machine actionable FAIR Digital Objects. This FAIR data is prepared to be reused for federated analysis, linkable to other FAIR data such as Linked Open Data, and reusable to develop software applications on top of them for hypothesis generation and knowledge discovery.