Schemas for telling stories in medical records

  • Carole Goble
  • Peter Crowther
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 779)

Abstract

To accurately support a patient's medical record, at least four interrelated models are required: a simple static one-level schema is inadequate. The models must support the medical record as a coherent story reconstructed from the sequence of recorded events within the medical record. We propose one representation which unifies all four models by a three space approach, each space acting as a schema for the space below. The three spaces assist atemporal summarisation of a patient's medical record and illustrate the difficulties of recording retrospective or contradictory observations. The approach uses a generative, descriptive subsumption-based classification formalism with a sophisticated system of semantic constraints controlling the generation of implied intensional concepts. We report our experiences in its use in a prototype clinical workstation. We believe that this model can be used for complex applications where contradictory and incomplete information is captured over time and a complex semantic constraint model is required.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Goble CA, Glowinski AJ, Nowlan WA, Rector AL (1992) “A Descriptive Semantic Formalism for Medicine” in: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Data Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 624–632Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Borgida A, Brachman RJ, McGuinness DL and Resnick LA (1989) “CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects” in: SIGMOD Record 18(2), pp. 58–67Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Rector AL, Goble CA, Horan B, Howkins TJ, Kay S, Nowlan WA and Wilson A (1990).“Shedding Light on Patient's Problems: Integrating Knowledge Based Systems into Medical Practice”, in: L Aiello (ed), Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 90, Pitman Publishing, pp 531–534Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Rector AL, Nowlan WA and Kay S (1992) “Conceptual Knowledge: The Core of Medical Information Systems” in: Lun KC, Degoulet P, Pierre TE, Rienhoff (eds) MEDINFO 92, Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress on Medical Informatics, Geneva, North-Holland pp. 1420–1426Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Nowlan WA and Rector AL. (1991) “Medical Knowledge Representation and Predictive Data Entry”, in: Stefanelli M, Hasman A, Fieschi M, Talmon J, (eds). Proceedings of AIME 91, Lecture notes in Medical Informatics 44 Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 105–116Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Rector AL, Horan B, Fitter M, Kay S, Newton PD, Nowlan WA, Robinson D and Wilson A (1991) “User Centred Design Development of a General Practice Medical Workstation: The PEN&PAD Experience” in: Bauersfeld P, Bennett J, Lynch G (eds) Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction CHI '92, ACM, Monterey, Addison Wesley pp.447–453Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Brachman RJ and Levesque HJ (1985) “A fundamental tradeoff in knowledge representation (revised version)” in Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ (eds) Readings in knowledge representation, Morgan Kaufmann, California pp. 41–70Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Brachman RJ, Fikes RE and Levesque HJ (1983) “KRYPTON: A functional approach to knowledge representation” in: IEEE Computer 16(10) pp. 73–76Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Brachman RJ and Levesque HJ (1984). “The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages” in: AAAI-84 pp. 34–37Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Doyle J and Patil RS (1989) “Two dogmas of knowledge representation: language restrictions, taxonomic classification and the utility of representation servers”. in: MIT internal report MIT.LCS/TM-387.bGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Beck HW, Gala SK and Navathe SB (1989) “Classification as a query processing technique in the CANDIDE data model” in: Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 572–581.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Hull R and King R (1987) “Semantic database modelling: survey, applications and research issues” in ACM Computing Surveys 19(3) pp. 210–260Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Nebel B, (1988) “Computational complexity of terminological reasoning in BACK” in: Artificial Intelligence, 34(3) pp. 371–383Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Goble CA, Glowinski AJ, Jeffrey KG (1993). “Semantic Constraints in a Medical Information System” in: (Eds) Worboys M, Grundy F, Proceedings of BNCOD11, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 696 Advances in Databases, Springer-Verlag, pp. 40–57Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Glowinski AJ, Matthews G (1993) “The Master Notation, Version 1”. AIM project 2012 (GALEN), Deliverable 6Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Brachman RJ and Schmoize JG (1985) “An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system” in: Cognitive Science 9, pp. 171–216Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Alexander JH, Freiling MJ, Shulman SJ, Staley JL, Rehfuss S and Messick SL (1986) “Knowledge level engineering: ontological analysis” in: AAAI-86 pp. 963–968Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Kay S, Goble CA, Howkins TJ (1993) “A Framework for Modelling the Electronic Medical Record” in: Methods of Information in Medicine 32(2) pp. 109–119Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Snodgrass R (1990) “Temporal Databases: Status and Research Directions” in SIGMOD Record 19(4) pp. 83–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carole Goble
    • 1
  • Peter Crowther
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical Informatics Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations