Table 1

Evaluation results for the intelligibility score and the circularity score. Subjects were asked to rate the circularity and intelligibility of definitions by answering 3 questions. The top and low scoring GO-terms were presented in random order and the score was not visible to the evaluators. Explanation on how to read the results: Q1 – Biol. 1 disagreed with only 6/50 terms that received a high circularity index, whereas he agreed with 49/50 terms, that received a low circularity score. Q2: Biol. 1 classified 49/50 terms that received a high intelligibility and 44/50 terms with a low intelligible index, as "roughly intelligible". Q3: Biol. 1 classified 29/50 terms that received a high intelligibility and 3/50 terms with a low intelligible index, as "fully intelligible".

Q1: Is the definition not circular, i.e. does the definition provide more information than the term itself?

Q2: Is the definition intelligible, i.e. did you roughly understand the meaning of the GO entry by reading the definition?

Q3: Is the definition intelligible, i.e. are you able to fully understand the meaning of the GO entry without requiring further reading of other sources?

Person score

Circular>

Not Circular

Intelligible

Not Intelligible

Intelligible

Not Intelligible

Biol. 1 – PostDoc

6/50

49/50

49/50

44/50

29/50

3/50

Biol. 2 – PostDoc

1/50

48/50

50/50

22/50

40/50

1/50

Biol. 3 – BSc

1/50

46/50

44/50

49/50

45/50

2/50

Bioinf. – MSc

3/50

46/50

45/50

4/50

48/50

1/50

Köhler et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2006 7:212   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-212