We present an analytical study of the quality of metadata about samples used in biomedical experiments. The metadata under analysis are stored in two well-known databases: BioSample—a repository managed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), and BioSamples—a repository managed by the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI). We tested whether 11.4 M sample metadata records in the two repositories are populated with values that fulfill the stated requirements for such values. Our study revealed multiple anomalies in the metadata. Most metadata field names and their values are not standardized or controlled. Even simple binary or numeric fields are often populated with inadequate values of different data types. By clustering metadata field names, we discovered there are often many distinct ways to represent the same aspect of a sample. Overall, the metadata we analyzed reveal that there is a lack of principled mechanisms to enforce and validate metadata requirements. The significant aberrancies that we found in the metadata are likely to impede search and secondary use of the associated datasets.

The OWL Reasoner Evaluation competition is an annual competition (with an associated workshop) that pits OWL 2 compliant reasoners against each other on various standard reasoning tasks over naturally occurring problems. The 2015 competition was the third of its sort and had 14 reasoners competing in six tracks comprising three tasks (consistency, classification, and realisation) over two profiles (OWL 2 DL and EL). In this paper, we discuss the design, execution and results of the 2015 competition with particular attention to lessons learned for benchmarking, comparative experiments, and future competitions.

Metadata that are structured using principled schemas and that use terms from ontologies are essential to making biomedical data findable and reusable for downstream analyses. The largest source of metadata that describes the experimental protocol, funding, and scientific leadership of clinical studies is ClinicalTrials.gov. We evaluated whether values in 302,091 trial records adhere to expected data types and use terms from biomedical ontologies, whether records contain fields required by government regulations, and whether structured elements could replace free-text elements. Contact information, outcome measures, and study design are frequently missing or underspecified. Important fields for search, such as condition and intervention, are not restricted to ontologies, and almost half of the conditions are not denoted by MeSH terms, as recommended. Eligibility criteria are stored as semi-structured free text. Enforcing the presence of all required elements, requiring values for certain fields to be drawn from ontologies, and creating a structured eligibility criteria element would improve the reusability of data from ClinicalTrials.gov in systematic reviews, metanalyses, and matching of eligible patients to trials.

The Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval (CEDAR) aims to revolutionize the way that metadata describing scientific experiments are authored. The software we have developed¾the CEDAR Workbench¾is a suite of Web-based tools and REST APIs that allows users to construct metadata templates, to fill in templates to generate high-quality metadata, and to share and manage these resources. The CEDAR Workbench provides a versatile, RESTbased environment for authoring metadata that are enriched with terms from ontologies. The metadata are available as JSON, JSON-LD, or RDF for easy integration in scientific applications and reusability on the Web. Users can leverage our APIs for validating and submitting metadata to external repositories. The CEDAR Workbench is freely available and open-source.

No abstract