Advertisement

Supporting Digital Healthcare Services Using Semantic Web Technologies

  • Gintaras Barisevičius
  • Martin Coste
  • David Geleta
  • Damir Juric
  • Mohammad Khodadadi
  • Giorgos StoilosEmail author
  • Ilya Zaihrayeu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11137)

Abstract

We report on our efforts and faced challenges in using Semantic Web technologies for the purposes of supporting healthcare services provided by Babylon Health. First, we created a large medical Linked Data Graph (LDG) which integrates many publicly available (bio)medical data sources as well as several country specific ones for which we had to build custom RDF-converters. Even for data sources already distributed in RDF format a conversion process had to be applied in order to unify their schemata, simplify their structure and adapt them to the Babylon data model. Another important issue in maintaining and managing the LDG was versioning and updating with new releases of data sources. After creating the LDG, various services were built on top in order to provide an abstraction layer for non-expert end-users like doctors and software engineers which need to interact with it. Finally, we report on one of the key use cases built in Babylon, namely an AI-based chatbot which can be used by users to determine if they are in need of immediate medical treatment or they can follow a conservative treatment at home. To match user text to our internal AI-models an NLP-based knowledge extraction and logic-based reasoning approach was implemented and evaluation provided with encouraging results.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F.: Terminological cycles in KL-ONE-based knowledge representation languages. In: Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 621–626 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belleau, F., Nolin, M., Tourigny, N., Rigault, P., Morissette, J.: Bio2RDF: towards a mashup to build bioinformatics knowledge systems. J. Biomed. Inform. 41(5), 706–716 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodenreider, O., McCray, A.T.: Exploring semantic groups through visual approaches. J. Biomed. Inform. 36(6), 414–432 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callahan, A., Cruz-Toledo, J., Ansell, P., Dumontier, M.: Bio2RDF Release 2: improved coverage, interoperability and provenance of life science linked data. In: Cimiano, P., Corcho, O., Presutti, V., Hollink, L., Rudolph, S. (eds.) ESWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7882, pp. 200–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, B., Dong, X., Jiao, D., Wang, H., Zhu, Q., Ding, Y., Wild, D.J.: Chem2Bio2RDF: a semantic framework for linking and data mining chemogenomic and systems chemical biology data. BMC Bioinform. 11, 255 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Motik, B., Stoilos, G., Horrocks, I.: Completeness guarantees for incomplete ontology reasoners: theory and practice. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 43, 419–476 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dumontier, M., Baker, C.J.O., Baran, J., Callahan, A., Chepelev, L.L., Cruz-Toledo, J., Rio, N.R.D., Duck, G., Furlong, L.I., Keath, N., et al.: The semanticscience integrated ontology (SIO) for biomedical research and knowledge discovery. J. Biomed. Semant. 5, 14 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elmer, S., Jrad, F., Liebig, T., ul Mehdi, A., Opitz, M., Stauß, T., Weidig, D.: Ontologies and reasoning to capture product complexity in automation industry. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Semantic Web Conference Posters & Demonstrations and Industry Tracks (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Etzioni, O., Banko, M., Cafarella, M.J.: Machine reading. In: Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 1517–1519 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golbeck, J., Fragoso, G., Hartel, F.W., Hendler, J.A., Oberthaler, J., Parsia, B.: The national cancer institute’s thésaurus and ontology. J. Web Semant. 1(1), 75–80 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golbreich, C., Grosjean, J., Darmoni, S.J.: The foundational model of anatomy in OWL 2 and its use. Artif. Intell. Med. 57(2), 119–132 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jain, P., Hitzler, P., Yeh, P.Z., Verma, K., Sheth, A.P.: Linked data is merely more data. In: Linked Data Meets Artificial Intelligence, Papers from the 2010 AAAI Spring Symposium, Technical Report SS-10-07, Stanford, California, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I.: Exploiting the UMLS metathesaurus in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Exploiting Large Knowledge Repositories (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kazakov, Y.: Consequence-driven reasoning for horn SHIQ ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 2040–2045 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knoblock, C.A., et al.: Lessons learned in building linked data for the American art collaborative. In: d’Amato, C., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10588, pp. 263–279. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68204-4_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kübler, S., McDonald, R.T., Nivre, J.: Dependency Parsing. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCray, A., Nelson, S.: The representation of meaning in the UMLS. Meth. Inform. Med. 34, 193–201 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nolin, M., Dumontier, M., Belleau, F., Corbeil, J.: Building an HIV data mashup using Bio2RDF. Brief. Bioinform. 13(1), 98–106 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salvadores, M., Alexander, P.R., Musen, M.A., Noy, N.F.: Bioportal as a dataset of linked biomedical ontologies and terminologies in RDF. Semant. Web 4(3), 277–284 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schriml, L.M., et al.: Disease ontology: a backbone for disease semantic integration. Nucleic Acids Research 40(Database–Issue), 940–946 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 25(1), 158–176 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spackman, K.A., Campbell, K.E., Côté, R.A.: SNOMED RT: a reference terminology for health care. In: American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium, AMIA 1997, Nashville, TN, USA, October 25–29, 1997 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stoilos, G., Geleta, D., Shamdasani, J., Khodadadi, M.: A novel approach and practical algorithms for ontology integration. In: Proceedings of 17th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gintaras Barisevičius
    • 1
  • Martin Coste
    • 1
  • David Geleta
    • 1
  • Damir Juric
    • 1
  • Mohammad Khodadadi
    • 1
  • Giorgos Stoilos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ilya Zaihrayeu
    • 1
  1. 1.Babylon HealthLondonUK

Personalised recommendations