Evaluation for cl-kg

Evaluator: Automated Evaluation

Evaluated on: 2026-01-06

⚠️ Automated Evaluation: This evaluation was generated automatically using an AI-based system. It is distinct from manual evaluations curated by human experts. Please review findings carefully and report any inaccuracies.

Evaluation Criteria: This evaluation uses the KG-Registry evaluation rubric as described in Cortes et al. (2025) . The rubric assesses knowledge graphs across multiple dimensions including access, provenance, documentation, maintenance, and fitness for purpose.


Access Level and Types

QuestionAnswerComment
Access to data outside of the knowledge graphYCell Ontology via OBO repository and CellXGene integration for single cell transcriptomics data from multiple studies
API or online access to the knowledge graphNNeo4j instance accessible via browser interface at cellular-semantics.sanger.ac.uk but no documented REST or programmatic API
Multiple access options availableNSingle access mechanism through Neo4j browser; no SPARQL endpoint, downloads, or alternative query interfaces documented
Source code availabilityYComplete source code available at github.com/Cellular-Semantics/CL_KG with Apache 2.0 license enabling reproducibility
Downloadable knowledge graphNNo bulk export format documented; Neo4j queries only method to extract data from KG instance

Section Score: 2/5

Provenance of Nodes and Edges

QuestionAnswerComment
Source list providedYCell Ontology and CellXGene datasets clearly identified as primary sources for cell type and transcriptomics data
Source versions informationNNo documentation of specific Cell Ontology version or CellXGene data snapshot dates used in KG construction
Import dependenciesYGitHub repository shows integration pipeline and dependencies for ontology alignment and annotation
Node and edge sourcesYCell types traceable to Cell Ontology identifiers; transcriptomics associations sourced from CellXGene studies
Edges deduplicationNNo documentation of deduplication strategy for redundant cell type assignments across studies
Triples source detailsNNeo4j property graph structure but no RDF schema or formal ontology mappings documented
Edge type schemaNRelationship types between cells and ontology terms not formally mapped to standard ontologies

Section Score: 3/7

Documented standards, schema, construction

QuestionAnswerComment
Biological usable dataYCell type hierarchies and transcriptomics annotations directly applicable to single cell analysis and cell biology research
Resolvable IDsYUses stable Cell Ontology identifiers and CellXGene cell type standardized vocabulary resolvable externally
Construction documentationNETL methodology not formally documented beyond source code; integration approach not transparent in publications
Transformation documentationNHow CellXGene transcriptomics hierarchies map to Neo4j structure not documented
Schema usedNNeo4j graph schema not formally published; no RDF or OWL specification available for semantic integration

Section Score: 2/5

Update frequency and versioning

QuestionAnswerComment
Stable versionsYGitHub releases available with tagged stable versions enabling reproducibility
Public tracker informationYGitHub issues tracker active; Cellular Semantics project maintains the resource
Knowledge graph contact informationYUgur Bayindir (ORCID 0000-0002-6012-3729) available for contact; active development team
Updated annuallyYRepository shows regular commits and updates reflecting CellXGene data additions
Prior versions accessYFull Git history and release archives available for reproducibility

Section Score: 5/5

Evaluation - Metrics and Fitness for Purpose

QuestionAnswerComment
Use case providedYClear use case: cell type annotation and standardization for single cell transcriptomics studies
Evaluation against other modelsNNo comparison with other cell type ontologies or cell annotation standards (e.g., LSAC, CellTypist)
Defined scopeYFocused scope on Cell Ontology integration with CellXGene transcriptomics data
Multiple evaluation methodsNNo systematic validation of cell type annotation accuracy against independent datasets
Accuracy metricsNNo reported precision/recall for cell type predictions or annotation completeness metrics

Section Score: 2/5

License Information

QuestionAnswerComment
License