Table 8 Hierarchy analysis results. The number of mappings whose classes’ top-level ancestors were not matched manually (Table 7) are shown for each system and ontology pair. The amount and percentage of false positives (FP) refer to the mappings that were discarded from the alignment for recalculation of both the precision and F1-score
From: Performance assessment of ontology matching systems for FAIR data
Whole ontology | Module | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Matching system | Ontology pair | Incorrect hierarchy mappings (of which FP) | Proportion of total alignment (FP) | Incorrect hierarchy mappings (of which FP) | Proportion of total alignment (FP) |
AgreementMaker Light 2.0 | ORDO-SNOMED CT | 494 (318) | 8% (5%) | 9 (6) | 21% (14%) |
FCA-Map | ORDO-SNOMED CT | 489 (310) | 10% (6%) | 11 (8) | 24% (17%) |
LogMap 2.0 | ORDO-SNOMED CT | 193 (106) | 3% (2%) | 5 (3) | 9% (6%) |
AgreementMaker Light 2.0 | NCIt-SNOMED CT | 3,055 (252) | 16% (1%) | 46 (13) | 24% (7%) |
FCA-Map | NCIt-SNOMED CT | 6,868 (3,299) | 26% (12%) | 60 (23) | 27% (10%) |
LogMap 2.0 | NCIt-SNOMED CT | 3,790 (1,180) | 16% (5%) | 42 (9) | 20% (4%) |
AgreementMaker Light 2.0 | NCIt-ORDO | 127 (102) | 5% (4%) | 4 (1) | 11% (3%) |
FCA-Map | NCIt-ORDO | 1,229 (1,170) | 3% (3%) | 12 (8) | 26% (17%) |
LogMap 2.0 | NCIt-ORDO | 130 (92) | 5% (3%) | 3 (0) | 10% (0%) |