Interface Terminologies

Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

Note to the reader: This chapter assembles and digests content from several articles published in the biomedical literature. The complete articles are listed in the reading list at the end of this chapter. The two key articles are:

Keywords

Depression Appendicitis Amoxicillin Clenched Fist 

References

  1. 1.
    Chute CG, Elkin PL, Sherertz DD, Tuttle MS. Desiderata for a clinical terminology server. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:42–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McDonald FS, Chute CG, Ogren PV, Wahner-Roedler D, Elkin PL. A large-scale evaluation of terminology integration characteristics. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:864–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rose JS, Fisch BJ, Hogan WR, et al. Common medical terminology comes of age, part one: standard language improves healthcare quality. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2001;15:307–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell KE, Das AK, Musen MA. A logical foundation for representation of clinical data. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1:218–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenbloom ST, Miller RA, Johnson KB, Elkin PL, Brown SH. Interface terminologies: facilitating direct entry of clinical data into electronic health record systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:277–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shortliffe EH, Perreault LE, Wiederhold G, Fagan LM. Medical informatics: computer applications in health care. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub Co.; 1990. p. 37–69.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammond WE, Stead WW, Straube MJ, Jelovsek FR. Functional characteristics of a computerized medical record. Methods Inf Med. 1980;19:157–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/TS 17117:2002(E): Health Informatics – controlled health terminology – structure and high-level indicators: Technical Committee ISO/TC 215, Health Informatics; 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humphreys BL, McCray AT, Cheh ML. Evaluating the coverage of controlled health data terminologies: report on the results of the NLM/AHCPR large scale vocabulary test. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4:484–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cimino JJ. Desiderata for controlled medical vocabularies in the twenty-first century. Methods Inf Med. 1998;37:394–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chute CG, Cohn SP, Campbell JR. 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. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5:503–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO 1087–1: Terminology work – vocabulary Part 1: theory and application: Technical Committee TC 37/SC 1; ISO Standards – terminology (principles and coordination); 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO 1087–2: Terminology work – vocabulary Part 2: computer applications: Technical Committee TC 37/SC 3; ISO Standards – computer applications for terminology; 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM 2087:2000: Standard specification for quality indicators for controlled health vocabularies: ASTM Committee E31 on healthcare informatics; 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fung KW, Hole WT, Nelson SJ, Srinivasan S, Powell T, Roth L. Integrating SNOMED CT into the UMLS: an exploration of different views of synonymy and quality of editing. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(4):486–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell JR. Semantic features of an enterprise interface terminology for SNOMED RT. Medinfo. 2001;10:82–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Kay S. Conceptual knowledge: the core of medical information systems. In: Lun KC, Deguolet P, Piemme TE, Rienhoff O, editors. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on medical informatics (MEDINFO ’92), Geneva; 1992. p. 1420–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenbloom ST, Brown SH, Froehling D, et al. Using SNOMED CT to represent two interface terminologies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rassinoux AM, Miller RA, Baud RH, Scherrer JR. Modeling just the important and relevant concepts in medicine for medical language understanding: a survey of the issues. In: Proceedings of the IMIA WG6 working conference, Jacksonville; 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horrocks IR. A comparison of two terminological knowledge representation systems [Master’s], University of Manchester, Manchester; 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rector AL, Bechhofer S, Goble CA, Horrocks I, Nowlan WA, Solomon WD. The GRAIL concept modelling language for medical terminology. Artif Intell Med. 1997;9:139–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Masarie Jr FE, Miller RA, Bouhaddou O, Giuse NB, Warner HR. An interlingua for electronic interchange of medical information: using frames to map between clinical vocabularies. Comput Biomed Res. 1991;24:379–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shortliffe EH, Davis R, Axline SG, Buchanan BG, Green CC, Cohen SN. Computer-based consultations in clinical therapeutics: explanation and rule acquisition capabilities of the MYCIN system. Comput Biomed Res. 1975;8:303–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller PL. Critiquing anesthetic management: the “ATTENDING” computer system. Anesthesiology. 1983;58:362–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poon AD, Johnson KB, Fagan LM. Augmented transition networks as a representation for knowledge-based history-taking systems. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1992:762–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Palfrey JS. History of bright futures. Pediatr Ann. 2008;37:135–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaw JS. Practice improvement: child healthcare quality and bright futures. Pediatr Ann. 2008;37:159–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller RA, McNeil MA, Challinor SM, Masarie Jr FE, Myers JD. The INTERNIST-1/QUICK MEDICAL REFERENCE project–status report. West J Med. 1986;145:816–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evans DA, Cimino JJ, Hersh WR, Huff SM, Bell DS. Toward a medical-concept representation language. The Canon Group. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1:207–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical InformaticsVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations