NamesforLife Semantic Resolution Services for the Life Sciences

A major challenge in bioinformatics, life sciences, and medicine is using correct and informative names. While this sounds simple enough, many different naming conventions exist in the life sciences and medicine that may be either complementary or competitive with other naming conventions. For a variety of reasons, proper names are not always used, leading to an accumulated semantic ambiguity that readers of the literature and end users of databases are left to resolve on their own. This ambiguity is a growing problem and the biocuration community is aware of its consequences. 

To assist those confronted with ambiguous names (which not only includes researchers but clinicians, manufacturers, patent attorneys, and others who use biological data in their routine work), we developed a generalizable semantic model that represents names, concepts, and exemplars (representations of biological entities) as distinct objects. By identifying each object with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) it becomes possible to place forward-pointing links in the published literature, in databases, and vector graphics that can be used as part of a mechanism for resolving ambiguities, thereby “future proofing” a nomenclature or terminology. A full implementation of the N4L model for the _Bacteria_ and _Archaea_ was released in April, 2010. The system is professionally curated and represents a Tier III resource in Parkhill’s view of bioinformatic services. A variety of tools and web services have been developed for readers, publishers, and others (N4L Guide, N4L Autotagger, N4L Semantic Search, N4L Taxonomic Abstracts) and we are incorporating other taxonomies into the N4L data model, as well as adding additional phenotypic, genotypic, and genomic information to the existing exemplars to add greater value to end users

Data_Sheet_1_The study of ableism in population health: a critical review.docx

Over the past three decades, health equity has become a guiding framework for documenting, explaining, and informing the promotion of population health. With these developments, scholars have widened public health’s aperture, bringing systems of oppression sharply into focus. Additionally, some researchers in disability and health have advocated for utilizing socially grounded frameworks to investigate the health of disabled people. Yet, naming ableism, much less operationalizing it for the empirical study of health, remains scant. This paper critically reviews the study of ableism as a social determinant of disabled people’s health within population health research. First, we provide an orientation to the present state of this literature by looking to the past. We briefly trace a history of traditional approaches to studying disability and health and alternatives that have emerged from critiques of the individualized lens that has dominated this work. Next, we delineate the operation of ableism across social levels. We characterize how ableism has been studied in population health in terms of levels of analysis (intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and structural) and measures of interest. To conclude, we discuss hinderances to and promising avenues toward population health research that advances health equity for disabled people.</p