Skip to main content

Medical Concept Representation

  • Chapter
Medical Informatics

Part of the book series: Integrated Series in Information Systems ((ISIS,volume 8))

Chapter Overview

The description of concepts in the biomedical domain spans levels of precision, complexity, implicit knowledge, and breadth of application that makes the knowledge representation problem more challenging than that in virtually any other domain. This chapter reviews some of this breadth in the form of use-cases, and highlights some of the challenges confronted, including variability among the properties of terminologies, classifications, and ontologies. Special challenges arise at the semantic boundary between information and terminology models, which are not resolvable on one side of either boundary. The problems of aggregation are considered, together with the requirement for rule-based logic when mapping information described using detailed terminologies to high-level classifications. Finally, the challenge of semantic interoperability, arguably the goal of all standards efforts, is explored with respect to medical concept representation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L. et al. (Eds.). (2002). The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baader, F. D. and Nutt, F. W. (2002). “Basic Description Logics,” in F. Baader et al. (Eds.), The Description Logic Handbook, Cambridge University Press, 47–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blois, M, Tuttle, M., and Sherertz, D. (1981). “RECONSIDER: A Program for Generating Differential Diagnoses,” in Proceedings of the 5th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1–4, 1981, 263–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blois, M. S. (1998). “Medicine and the Nature of Vertical Reasoning,” New England Journal of Medicine, 318(13), 847–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. R., Carpenter, P. C., Sneiderman, C. et al. (1997). “Phase II Evaluation of Clinic Coding Schemes: Completeness, Taxonomy, Mapping, Definitions, and Clarity,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4(3), 238–251.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., Lussier, Y. A., and Mendoca, E. A. (2003). “Adapting Current Arden Syntax Knowledge for an Object Oriented Event Monitor,” in AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chute, C. G. (2002). “The Horizontal and Vertical Nature of Patient Phenotype Retrieval: New Directions for Clinical Text Processing,” in Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium, 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chute, C. G. (2000). “Clinical Classification and Terminology: Some History and Current Observations,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7(3), 298–303.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chute, C. G. (1998). “The Copernican Era of Healthcare Terminology: A Re-centering of Health Information Systems,” in Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium, 68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chute, C. G., Carter, J. S., Tuttle, M. S. et al. (2003). “Integrating Pharmacokinetics Knowledge into a Drug Ontology: As an Extension to Support Pharmacogenomics,” in Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium, 170–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chute, C. G., Cohn, S. P., and Campbell, J. R. (1998). “A Framework for Comprehensive Health Terminology Systems in the United States: Development Guidelines, Criteria for Selection, and Public Policy Implications. ANSI Healthcare Informatics Standards Board Vocabulary Working Group and the Computer-Based Patient Records Institute Working Group on Codes and Structures,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 5(6), 503–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chute, C. G., Cohn, S. P., Campbell, K. E. et al. (1996). “The Content Coverage of Clinical Classifications,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 3(3), 224–233.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cimino, J. J. (1998). “Desiderata for Controlled Medical Vocabularies in the Twenty-First Century,” Methods of Information in Medicine, 37(4–5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cote, R. (1983). “Editorial: Ending the Classification Versus Nomenclature Controversy,” Medical Informatics, 8(1), 1–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fellbaum, C. (1998). “WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database,” in Language, Speech, and Communication, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graunt, J. (1939). Natural and Political Observations Made Upon the Bills of Mortality; London, 1662, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersh, W.R. (2003). Information Retrieval: A Health and Biomedical Perspective, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, B. L. and Lindberg, D. A. B. (1989). “Building the Unified Medical Language System,” in Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 13, 475–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingenerf, J. and Giere, W. (1998). “Concept-oriented Standardization and Statistics-oriented Classification: Continuing the Classification Versus Nomenclature Controversy,” Methods of Information in Medicine, 37(4–5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Knublauch, H. (2004). “The Protégé OWL Plugin,” in 7th International Protégé Conference, Bethesda, MD, http://protege.stanford.edu/conference/2004/index.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, D. A. B., Rowland, L. R., Buck, C. R. et al. (1968). “CONSIDER: A Computer Program for Medical Instruction,” in Proceedings of the 9th IBM Med. Symposium, White Plains, New York: IBM.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, D. L. and Harmelen, Fv. (2004). “OWL Web Ontology Language: Overview,” W3C, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

    Google Scholar 

  • McKusick, V. A. OMIM-Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, Bethesda: National Center for Biotechnology Information, NIH/NLM, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=OMIM

    Google Scholar 

  • National Library of Medicine. (2003). MLS Metathesaurus Rich Release (MR+) Format, Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/white_paper.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, S. J., Schopen, M., Savage, A. G. et al. (2004). “The MeSH Translation Maintenance System: Structure, Interface Design, and Implementation,” in Medinfo, 67–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noy, N. F., Crubezy, M., Fergerson, R. W. et al. (2003). “Protege-2000: An Open-source Ontology-Development and Knowledge-Acquisition Environment,” in Proceedings of the Annual AMIA Symposium, 953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, C. K., Richards, I. A., Malinowski, B. et al. (Eds.) (1923). The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakhomov, S. V., Buntrock, J. D., and Chute, C. G. (2004). “Using Compound Codes for Automatic Classification of Clinical Diagnoses,” in Medinfo, 411–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrin, P. (1986). Aristotle’s Classification of Animals: Biology and the Conceptual Unity of the Aristotelian Corpus, Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rector, A. L. (1999). “Clinical Terminology: Why is it So Hard?” Methods of Information in Medicine, 38(4–5), 239–252.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rector, A. L., Nowland, W., and The Galen Consortium. (1993). “The GALEN Project,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, (45), 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rector, A. L., Rossi Mori, A., Consorti, M. F. et al. (1998). “Practical Development of Re-usable Terminologies: GALEN-IN-USE and the GALEN Organization,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, 48(1–3), 71–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scriver, C. R. (2001). The Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease, 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 4 vols, (xlvii, 6338, I-140 p.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. and Rosse, C. (2004). “The Role of Foundational Relations in the Alignment of Biomedical Ontologies,” in Medinfo, 444–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B., Williams, J., and Schulze-Kremer, S. (2003). “The Ontology of the Gene Ontology,” in AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 609–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solbrig, H., Elkin, P., Ogren, P. et al. (2000). “A Formal Approach to Integrating Synonyms with a Reference Terminology,” in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association Symposium Supplement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spackman, K. A., Dionne, R., Mays, E. et al. (2002). “Role Grouping as an Extension to the Description Logic of Ontylog, Motivated by Concept Modeling in SNOMED,” in Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium, 712–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States. President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, and the National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development. (2004). “Revolutionizing Health Care through Information Technology Report to the President,” Arlington, VA: National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development, http://www.itrd.gov/pitac/reports/20040721_hit_report.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Wroe, C.J., Stevens, R., Goble, C. A. et al. (2003). “A Methodology to Migrate the Gene Ontology to a Description Logic Environment Using DAML+OIL,” in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 624–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasnoff, W. A., Humphreys, B.L., Overhage, J. M. et al. (2004). “A Consensus Action Agenda for Achieving the National Health Information Infrastructure,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(4), 332–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Suggested Readings

  • Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D. L. et al. (Eds.) (2002) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rector, A. L. (1999). “Clinical Terminology: Why is it so Hard?” Methods of Information in Medicine, 38(4–5), 239–252.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chute, C. G. (2000). “Clinical Classification and Terminology: Some History and Current Observations,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7(3), 298–303.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chute, C.G. (2005). Medical Concept Representation. In: Chen, H., Fuller, S.S., Friedman, C., Hersh, W. (eds) Medical Informatics. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 8. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25739-X_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25739-X_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-24381-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-25739-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics