Computational Ontologies in Orthopaedic Surgery
Information Technology (IT) plays an important role in storing and collating the vast amounts of healthcare data. However, analyzing and integrating this data to extract useful information is difficult due to the heterogeneous, siloed, disparate, and unstructured nature of the data.
Where are we now?
Attempts to standardize data reporting by establishing reporting standards, checklists and guidelines have not been optimal [3, 11, 19]. Moreover, efforts to integrate data through the use of registries, data sharing networks, vocabularies and data standards have also yielded limited results. These efforts, when applied to orthopaedics, where theoretical knowledge is scattered over subspecialties, make it a cognitively challenging and tedious process.
Where do we need to go?
Implementing data standardization is an important step towards homogenizing the data so that it can be integrated. Once integrated, the next step would be data analysis for information extraction. This information would be useful in answering important questions, especially in orthopaedic clinical practice and research, and could even help optimize methodologies in the education field.
How do we get there?
With the ability to describe concepts in a standardized manner and define existing interrelationships, ontologies are a potential solution. They assist in standardizing and integrating data and also impart strong inferential capabilities at a granular level. When applied to orthopaedics, they can standardize data collection, link data sources, generate knowledge based on the assumptions present in the interlinked data, thus answering important questions regarding orthopaedic clinical practice, research and education [22, 28, 30].
KeywordsKnowledge Translation Musculoskeletal System Clubfoot Electronic Patient Record System Granular Level
We thank the “Research on Research” team for the templates for writing the introduction and discussion sections of the manuscript as well as templates for Literature matrix, Duke University Health System. (Available at: http://researchonresearch.org/. Accessed Dec 12, 2009.)
- 2.Becker M, Heine C, Herrler R, Krempels KH. 2002. OntHoS—an Ontology for Hospital Scenarios. Technical Report No. 300, Julius-MaximiliansUniversit at Wurzburg, Institut fur Informatik; September 2002.Google Scholar
- 7.Correndo G, Alani H. Collaborative support for community data sharing. The 2nd Workshop on Collective Intelligence in Semantic Web and Social Networks. 2008;3:17–20.Google Scholar
- 8.Dao TT, Marin F, Tho MC. Ontology-based computer-aided decision system: a new architecture and application concerning the musculoskeletal system of the lower limbs. 4th European Conference of the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering (ECIFMBE). 2009;22:1540–1543.Google Scholar
- 9.Echarte F, Astrain JJ, Córdoba A, Villadangos J. Ontology of folksonomy: a new modeling method. In: Proceedings of Semantic Authoring, Annotation and Knowledge Markup. Available at: http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-289/p08.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2010.
- 10.Echarte F, Astrain JJ, Cordoba A, Villadangos J. Self-adaptation of ontologies to folksonomies in semantic web. Proc World Acad Sci Eng Tech. 2008;33:335–341.Google Scholar
- 12.Gilbert L, Wills G, Sim YW, Wang C, Stenning M. e-Learning within a Collaborative Orthopaedic Research Environment (CORE). In: Association for Learning Technology (ALT-C 2005). 2005;79–80.Google Scholar
- 13.Grethe JS. NeuroLex and The Neuroscience Information Framework: Building comprehensive neuroscience ontologies with and for the community. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. Conference Abstract: 2nd INCF Congress of Neuroinformatics. Available at: http://frontiersin.org/conferences/individual_abstract_listing.php?conferid=155&pap=2535&ind_abs=1&pg=5. Accessed April 22, 2010.
- 15.Gupta A, Bug W, Marenco L, Qian X, Condit C, Rangarajan A, Muller HM, Miller PL, Sanders B, Grethe JS, Astakhov V, Shepherd G, Sternberg PW, Martone ME. Federated access to heterogeneous information resources in the Neuroscience Information Framework (NIF). Neuroinformatics. 2008;6:205–217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Lambert D. Integrating services for integrated medicine: building virtual physiomes with semantics services. Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom. 2007. Available at: http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/dave/publications/lambert-semubicare-2007.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2010.
- 22.Luengo V, Vadcard L. Design of adaptive feedback in a web educational system. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Workshop on Adaptive Systems for Web-Based Education: Tools and Reusability. 2005.Google Scholar
- 23.Mathes A. Folksonomies—Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata. 2004. Available at: http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html. Accessed April 22, 2010.
- 29.Rector AL. Compositional models of medical concepts: towards re-usable application-independent medical terminologies. In: Barahona P, Christensen JP, eds. Knowledge and Decisions in Health Telematics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press; 1994:133–142.Google Scholar
- 30.Rector A, Rogers J, Pole P. The GALEN High Level Ontology. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of the European Federation for Medical Informatics. 1996;174–178.Google Scholar
- 31.Spiteri L. Controlled Vocabularies and Folksonomies. Presentation at Canadian Metadata Forum. Ottawa, Ontario; 2005. Available at: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/014005/f2/014005-05209-e-e.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2010.
- 35.Wills G, Woukeu A, Bailey C, Ong A, Carr L, Conole G, Hall W, Grange S. Ontological Driven Learning Agreements. In: EDMEDIA 2004—World Conference on Education Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, June 21–26, 2004, Lugano, Switzerland.Google Scholar