johnbeve
commented
4 years ago In the updated version of IDO I sent you, I actually removed those classes since they're out of scope. That said, I think it's a good idea to include them in the paper as examples of how easily IDO can be extended to cover various infections. I'm thinking providing researchers a recipe will be important for getting them to use the suite.
What do you think?
PhiBabs935
Previously, in the new IDO paper I had a footnote regarding the following IDO terms:
amebiasis =def An infection located in the colon and that has as part organisms of the Species Entamoeba histolytica candidiasis =def An infection that has as part organisms of the Genus Candida leptipspirosis =def An infection that has as part organisms of the Genus Leptospira Shigellosis =def An infection located in the bowel and that has as part organisms of the Genus Shigella trichomoniasis =def An infection that has as part organisms of the Species Trichomonas vaginalis
The fn. said: "For lack of suitable pathogen specific extensions, the following subclasses of infection are currently included in IDO Core (these terms will be ported out once appropriate extension ontologies are developed):”
I suggest adding something along the following lines as an editor's comment for each of these classes:
“This class is currently included in IDO Core for lack of a suitable pathogen specific extension. This class will be ported out once the appropriate extension ontology is developed”