Assessing Applicability of Ontological Principles to Different Types of Biomedical Vocabularies

Summary

Objectives: Recently, ontological principles have been applied to numerous biomedical vocabularies, with the intention to identify mistakes and poor modeling decisions. No doubt, such applications are useful and necessary for terminological systems like SNOMED CT based on an axiomatic logical formalism.

Methods: In the following review, ontology is dealt with by focussing on particularly two aspects: the problem of ISA-overloading and the intrusion of epistemology-loaded terms in biomedical vocabularies. Both aspects are considered with respect to three types of biomedical vocabularies.

Results: Opposed to concept-oriented terminological systems, the purpose-specific organization of descriptors in thesauri and classes in statistical classifications on an extra aggregation level make it impossible to apply ontological principles. On the contrary, their intended purpose presupposes specific mechanisms that are in conflict with those principles.

Conclusions: Interestingly, for thesauri and classifications there are rather similar initiatives linking the extra level of descriptors and classes on the one hand and an intermediate concept level on the other hand. Such an approach proved beneficial for maintaining and translating thesauri and classifications.

Keywords

Controlled vocabularies - terminology - semantics - logic - medical informatics/standards

• References

• 1 Rogers JE. Quality assurance of medical ontologies. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (03) 267-274.
• 2 Welty CA, Guarino N. Support for ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. J Data and Knowledge Engineering 2001; 39 (01) 51-74.
• 3 Smith B, Ceusters W, Klagges B, Köhler J, Kumar A, Lomax J. et al. Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology 2005; 6 (05) R46. See http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46.
• 4 Ceusters W, Smith B, Kumar A, Dhaen C. Mistakes in medical ontologies: Where do they come from and how can they be detected?. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 102: 145-163.
• 5 Zhang S, Bodenreider O. Law and order: Assessing and enforcing compliance with ontological modeling principles in the Foundational Model of Anatomy. Comput Biol Med 2006; 36 7–8 674-693.
• 6 ISO/FDIS 1087.. Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1: Theory and application. Berlin: Beuth; 2000
• 7 ISO/TS 17117.. Health informatics – Controlled health vocabularies – Vocabulary structure and high-level indicators. Geneva:: ISO/TC215 (WG 3); 2002 See http://www.tc215wg3.nhs.uk.
• 8 Guarino N, Welty CA. Evaluating Ontological Decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM 2002; 45 (02) 61-65.
• 9 Spackman KA, Reynoso G. Examining SNOMED from the Perspective of Formal Ontological Principles: Some Preliminary Analysis and Observations. In: Hahn U. editor. 1st Int Workshop on Formal Biomedical Knowledge Representation (KRMED 2004). See http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-102 2004. pp 72-80.
• 10 Bodenreider O, Smith B, Burgun A. The Ontology-Epistemology Divide: A Case Study in Medical Terminology. In: Varzi A, Vieu L. editors. Int Conf on Formal Ontology and Information Systems (FOIS 2004). Amsterdam: IOS-Press; 2004. pp 185-195.
• 11 Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider P. The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge: University Press; (ISBN 0-521-78176-0) 2003
• 12 ISO 2788.. Documentation – Guidelines for the development of monolingual thesauri, Second edition. Berlin: Beuth; 1986
• 13 Nelson SJ, Johnston D, Humphreys BL. Relationships in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), chapter 11. In: Bean CA, Green R. editors. Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001. pp 171-184. See http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshrels.html
• 14 Welty CA, Jenkins J. Formal ontology for subject. Data and Knowledge Engineering 1999; 31: 155-181.
• 15 Wüster E. Begriffs- und Themaklassifikation: Unterschiede in ihrem Wesen und in ihrer Anwen-dung. Nachrichten für Dokumentation 1971; 22 3 and 4 98-104 and 143-150.
• 16 Rosch E. Principles of Categorization. In: Rosch E, Lloyd B. editors. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1978. pp 27-48.
• 17 Soualmia LF, Golbreich C, Darmoni SJ. Representing the MeSH in OWL: Towards a Semi-Automatic Migration. In: Hahn U. editor. 1st Int Workshop on Formal Biomedical Knowledge Representation (KR-MED 2004);. see http://CEUR-WS.org Vol-102/; 2004. pp 81-87.
• 18 Nelson SJ, Schopen M, Savage AG, Schulman JL, Arluk N. The MeSH translation maintenance system: structure, interface design, and implementation. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107 PT (01) 67.
• 19 Smith B, Ceusters W. Ontology as the Core Discipline of Biomedical Informatics – Legacies of the Past and Recommendations for the Future Direction of Research. In: Crnkovic GD, Stuart S. editors. Computing, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press; 2007. pp 104-122.
• 20 Ingenerf J, Giere W. Concept oriented Standardization and Statistics oriented Classification: Continuing the Classification versus Nomenclature Controversy. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37 4–5 527-539.
• 21 Bowman S. Coordinating SNOMED CT and ICD-10: Getting the Most out of Electronic Health Record Systems. J Ahima 2005; 76 (07) 60-61.
• 22 Elkin PL, Brown SH. Automated enhancement of description logic-defined terminologies to facilitate mapping to ICD9-CM. J Biomed Inform 2002; 35 5–6 281-288.
• 23 Schopen M, Krause B. Nomenclatures and Thesauri – Alternatives to the ICD-10 Alphabetical Index?. WHO Family of International Classification (WHO-FIC) Network Meeting in Reykjavic (Iceland), October 2004. See http://www.dimdi.de/static/en/klassi/koop/who/etc/etc_04_40.pdf.
• 24 Wasserman H, Wang J. An applied evaluation of SNOMED CT as a clinical vocabulary for the computerized diagnosis and problem list. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 699-703.
• 25 Rosenbloom ST, Miller RA, Johnson KB, Elkin PL, Brown SH. Interface terminologies: facilitating direct entry of clinical data into electronic health record systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (03) 277-288.
• 26 Ingenerf J, Pöppl SJ. Biomedical Vocabularies – the Demand for Differentiation. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007; 129 Pt [phone].
• 27 WHO.. Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). See http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/ICDRevision/en/.
• 28 Rector AL, Brandt S. Why do it the hard way? The case for an expressive description logic for SNOMED. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (06) 744-751.
• 29 HL7 Terminfo Project. See http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/terminfo/index.cfm.
• 30 Markwell D, Sato L, Cheetham E. Representing clinical information using SNOMED Clinical Terms with different structural information models. In: Cornet R, Spackman KA. editors. 3rd Int Conf on Knowledge Representation in Medicine (KR-MED 2008). See http://www.kr-med.org/2008/ ( http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-410 ); 2008. pp 72-79.
• 31 Stuart-Buttle CDG, Ashely JSA, O’Neil M. Clinical Vocabularies – Their Potential as Classifications. In: Masys DR. editor. AMIA Annual Fall Symposium (former SCAMC);. Philadelphia: Hanley and Belfus, Inc.; 1997. pp 892-896.
• 32 Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Kay S. Foundations for an electronic medical record. Methods Inf Med 1991; 30: 179-186.
• 33 Frank E, Paynter GW. Predicting library of congress classifications from library of congress subject headings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2004; 55 (03) 214-227.