An Ontology for Computer-Based Decision Support in Rehabilitation

  • Laia Subirats
  • Luigi Ceccaroni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7094)


Although functionality and disease classifications are available thanks to initiatives such as the “international classification of functioning, disability and health”, the “systematized nomenclature of medicine - clinical terms” and the “international classification of diseases”, a formal model of rehabilitation interventions has not been defined yet. This model can have a fundamental role in the design of computer-based decision support in rehabilitation. Some initiatives such as the “international classification of health interventions” are in development, but their scope is overly general to cope with the specificities that characterize rehabilitation. The aim of this work is to represent knowledge in order to carry out diagnosis and personalization of activities in cases of people with functional diversity. To define the diagnosis and activity personalization, a methodology has been developed to extract standardized concepts from clinical scales and the literature.


knowledge representation rehabilitation functional diversity personalized medicine evidence-based medicine 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berner, E.S., La Lande, T.J.: Overview of Clinical Decision Support Systems. In: Comp. in Health Care, pp. 3–22. Springer New York, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates, D.W., et al.: Effect of Computerized Physician Order Entry and a Team Intervention on Prevention of Serious Medication Errors. American Med. Association 280(15), 1311–1316 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeGruy, K.B.: Healthcare applications of knowledge discovery in databases. Health Inf. Manag. 14(2), 59–69 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perreault, L.E., Metzger, J.B.: A pragmatic framework for understanding clinical decision support. Healthcare Inf. Manag. 13(2), 5–21 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches. AI Commun. 7(1), 39–59 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holt, A., Bichindaritz, I., Schmidt, R., Perner, P.: Medical applications in case-based reasoning. Knowl. Eng. Review 20(3), 289–292 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marling, C.R., Whitehouse, P.J.: Case-Based Reasoning in The Care of Alzheimer’s Disease Patients. In: Aha, D.W., Watson, I. (eds.) ICCBR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2080, pp. 702–715. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Montani, S., Bellazzi, R., Portinale, L., Riva, A., Stefanelli, M.: Multi-modal Reasoning in Diabetic Patient Management. In: Horn, W., Shahar, Y., Lindberg, G., Andreassen, S., Wyatt, J.C. (eds.) AIMDM 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1620, pp. 113–123. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palaudàries, A., Armengol, E., Plaza, E.: Individual prognosis of diabetes long-term risks: A CBR approach. Methods of Inf. in Med. (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. J. of Web Sem. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Health Organization, ”International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)” (2011),, (accessed: June 15, 2011)
  12. 12.
    HPLabs, Jena, A Semantic Web Framework for Java (2010), (accessed: July 04, 2011)
  13. 13.
    OpenEHR Foundation, “The openEHR Reference Model,” (2008), (accessed: July 04, 2011)
  14. 14.
    Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Konstanjsek, N.: ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J. Rehabil. Med. 37(4), 212–218 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cimino, J.J.: Desiderata for Controlled Medical Vocabularies. In: Presented at the Methods Inf. Med., vol. 37, pp. 394–403 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Research Branch ICF Core Sets Projects, (Accessed: July 04, 2011)
  18. 18.
    Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E.: Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J. Rehabil. Med. 34(5), 205–210 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    College of American Pathologists y National Health Service, “Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine – Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT)”, (accessed: June 15, 2011)
  20. 20.
    Beale, T., Heard, S.: An Ontology-based Model of Clinical Information. Presented at the MedInfo, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 760–764 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dublin Core, Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1, (accessed: June 15, 2011)
  22. 22.
    National Centre for Classification in Health, “Condensed Classification of Health Development” (2004), (accessed: July 04, 2011)
  23. 23.
    World Health Organization, “International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)”,, (accessed: June 15 (2008)
  24. 24.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Sattler, U.: OWL 2: The next step for OWL. J. of Web Sem.: Science, Services and Agents on the WWW 4, 309–322 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rodrigues, J.M., Kumar, A., Bousquet, C., Trombert, B.: Using the CEN/ISO Standard for Categorial Structure to Harmonise the Development of WHO International Terminologies. Presented at the Med. Inf. in a United and Healthy Europe, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laia Subirats
    • 1
  • Luigi Ceccaroni
    • 1
  1. 1.Barcelona Digital Technology CentreBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations