Radiological and Biomedical Knowledge Integration: The Ontological Way


Imagine a scenario where a surgeon, oncologist, and radiologist at a research hospital work together to treat a cancer patient suffering from esophageal adenocarcinoma. After treatments of cisplatinum and fluorouracil administered by the oncologist, a round of teletherapy treatments from the radiologist, and a successful esophajectomy performed by the surgeon, the patient develops cauda equina syndrome (CES) weeks after the surgery which causes severely decreased mobility in his legs. The radiologist is perplexed by this and is interested in whether the megavoltage teletherapy treatments administered to the patient may have caused the CES. So, she sits down at her computer to do some research. She queries PubMed, MedNet, Dynamic MepPix, DynaMed, and MedlinePlus only to find a vast amount of disparate data from a variety of different sources. Not only is it difficult to find a set of relevant and precise terms, but she also has great difficulty discerning the connections between various seemingly related results. Further, regarding what little she does find, she must go to the journal’s Web sites, or to her university’s medical library, in order to piece together this disparate information for herself. She continues with a general Web search: there is something that looks vaguely relevant from a laboratory in Germany, but the researchers in that laboratory have not annotated any of their information for the benefit of other researchers on the Web; a laboratory in the Netherlands is composed of researchers with impressive publications in journals such as Radiology, Science, and Nature, but they deliberately choose not to make their results available on the Web, as they are vying for million-dollar research grants; still another laboratory in Columbia has what appear to be relevant conclusions that are available to anyone on the Web, but the researchers there have annotated their information in such a way that only other members of the laboratory can decipher it. Owing to this informational quagmire, the radiologist gives up her research and moves on to other projects. The surgeon and oncologist encounter the same sea of confusion in their own searches, and move on to other projects as well. Although the cancer patient is treated for CES, no reliably certain cause of the syndrome is discovered and, in addition to the complications due to his esophajectomy — such as gastric dumping syndrome — the patient’s right leg atrophies, becomes gangrenous, and must be amputated.


Domain Ontology Cauda Equina Syndrome Formal Ontology Open Biomedical Ontology Biomedical Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. do Amaral M, Roberts A, Rector A (2000) NLP techniques associated with the OpenGALEN ontology for semi-automatic textual extraction of medical knowledge: Abstracting and mapping equivalent linguistic and logical constructs. Proc AMIA Symp 2000:76–80Google Scholar
  2. Arp R (2008) Domain ontology. Formal ontology. Philosophical ontology. In: Williamson J, Russo F (eds) Key terms in logic. Continuum Press, London (in press)Google Scholar
  3. Baxevanis A, Ouellette B (2005) Bioinformatics: A practical guide to the analysis of genes and proteins. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman J (2006) Biomedical informatics. Jones and Bartlett, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertaud V, Belhadj I, Dameron O, Garcelon N, Hendaoui L, Marin F, Duvauferrier R (2007) Computerizing the radiological sign. Radiology 88:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ceusters W, Smith B, Kumar A, Dhaen C (2004) Mistakes in medical ontologies: Where do they come from and how can they be detected? Stud Health Technol Inform 102:145–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Donnelly M, Bittner T, Rosse C (2006) A formal theory for spatial representation and reasoning in biomedical ontologies. Artif Intell Med 36:1–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fielding J, Marwede D (2006) Four ontological models for radiological diagnostics. Stud Health Technol Inform 124:761–766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Grenon P, Smith B (2004) SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology. Spat Cognit Comput 1:1–10Google Scholar
  10. Gruber T (1993) A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowl Acquis 5:199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahn C, Channin D, Rubin D (2006) An ontology for PACS integration. J Dig Imag 19:316–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lesk A (2005) Introduction to bioinformatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Marwede D, Fielding M (2005) The epistemological-ontological divide in clinical radiology. Stud Health Technol Inform 116:749–754PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Polanski A, Kimmel M (2007) Bioinformatics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Pommert A, Höhne K, Pflesser B, Richter E, Riemer M, Schiemann T, Schubert R, Schumacher U, Tiede U (2001) Creating a high-resolution spatial/symbolic model of the inner organs based on the visible human. Med Image Anal 5:221–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rubin D (2007) Creating and curating a terminology for radiology: Ontology modeling and analysis. J Dig Imag, Available at: Accessed 28 April 2008
  17. Rubin D, Dameron O, Bashir Y, Grossman D, Dev P, Musen M (2006) Using ontologies linked with geometric models to reason about penetrating injuries. Artif Intell Med 37:167–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shortliffe E, Cimino J (2006) Biomedical informatics: Computer applications in health care and biomedicine. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith B (2003) Ontology. In: Floridi L (ed) Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information. Blackwell, MaidenGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith B, Grenon P (2004) The cornucopia of formal-ontological relations. Dialectica 58:279–296Google Scholar
  21. Smith B, Smith D (1995) The Cambridge companion to Husserl. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith B, Kusnierczyk W, Schober D, Ceusters W (2006) Towards a reference terminology for ontology research and development in the biomedical domain. Proc KR-MED 1:7Google Scholar
  23. Smith B, Ashburner M, Rosse C, Bard J, Bug W, Ceusters W, Goldberg LJ, Eilbeck K, Ireland A, et al. (2007) The OBO Foundry: Coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nat Biotechnol 25:1251–1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vizenor L, Smith B, Ceusters W (2004) Foundation for the electronic health record: An ontological analysis of the HL7’s reference information model. Available at: Accessed 28 April 2008

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Biomedical OntologyUniversity at BuffaloNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medical ImagingUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Medical Imaging Schulich School of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  4. 4.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations