Thanks, I appreciate that! In the abstract sense, I would say we are, in that it's the primary benefit of what we've built versus textual searching like you ge

Thanks, I appreciate that! In the abstract sense, I would say we are, in that it's the primary benefit of what we've built versus textual searching like you get with PubMed or Google Scholar. For example, if you were to search for a specific variant like BRAF V600E in Google Scholar or PubMed, you'd need to search for every way that the variant can be described in text, such as p.V600E, p.Val600Glu, c.1798T>A, C1798A, etc. Furthermore, you'd need to then read the results to determine which are specifically referencing the V600E variant in the BRAF gene, versus mentioning the V600E variant in one of the other genes mentioned in the paper. We've already done that work ahead of time, figuring out which variants belong to which genes in papers, normalizing all the different nomenclatures used for variants so that you can do a single search for your variant and remove the need to think about how authors could have referenced it. We do the same with taking into account all the different ways authors can talk about genes, diseases, clinical contexts, meanings and interpretations, etc. I don't know if that answers your question. I guess it depends on what you mean by knowledge graph, since there seem to be a few different ideas of what that entails.