Formal Modeling of Medical Concept Systems Considering Part-Whole Relations

  • Jochen Bernauer
  • Mareike Schoop
  • Dominik Schoop
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Summary

Conventional medical classification systems are monolithic and are lacking multiple views on concepts through the strictly mono-hierarchical organisation imposed by hierarchical coding. The only conventional way for reuse and multiple classification is by a multi-axial design. Formal concept representation and classification in medicine is a strategic approach for overcoming these problems. This paper identifies the major principles of subordination in conventional medical classification systems and outlines how these principles can be modeled through formal concept representation considering both subsumption and partwhole relation.

Keywords

Doyle MeSH 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BAUD R. H.; RASSINOUX A. M. and SCHERRER J. R. (1992). Natural Language Processing and Semantic Representation of Medical Text, Meth. of Information in Medicine, 31:117–125.Google Scholar
  2. BERNAUER J. (1994). Subsumption principles underlying medical concept systems and their formal reconstruction. In: Ozbolt J.G. (ed.), Proceedings 18th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care (SCAMC94), Washington DC, pp 140-144.Google Scholar
  3. BERNAUER, J. (1996a), Analysis of part-whole relation and subsumption in the medical domain, to appear in: Data and Knowledge Engineering.Google Scholar
  4. BERNAUER J.; BENNEKE A.; FUESESCHi A. and Urban M. (1996b), Structured data entry for medical records and reports. To appear in: van de Riet (ed.), NLDB96 Second international workshop on applications of natural language to information systems, Amsterdam, IOS Press.Google Scholar
  5. BERNAUER J. et al. (1996c), A Model for Representation, Classification and Composition of Medical Concept Descriptions Based on Conceptual Graphs, to be published.Google Scholar
  6. CAMPBELL K. E.; DAS A. K. and MUSEn M. A. (1994), A Logical Foundation for Representation of Clinical Data, J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 1:218–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DOYLE J. and PATIL R. (1991). Two theses of knowledge representation: language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services. Artificial Intelligence 48: 261–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. GALEN-IN-USE (1996). Telematics Application Programme — HC 1018 HC ICD-10 (1992). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Tenth Revision, World Health Organization Geneva.Google Scholar
  9. ICPM (1994), Operationenschluessel nach Paragraph 301 SGB V — Internationale Klassifikation der Prozeduren in der Medizin herausgegeben vom Deutschen Institut fuer medizinische Dokumentation und Information DIMDI im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums fuer Gesundheit, Version 1.0, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. MeSH, Medical Subject Headings, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda (quarterly updated).Google Scholar
  11. RECTOR A. L.; GLOWINSKI A. J.; NOWLAN W. A. and ROSSI-MORI A. (1995), Medical-concept Models and Medical Records: Am Approach Based on GALEN and PEN&PAD, J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2:19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. SCHOOP M. and SCHOOP D.(1996). Differences of representing a conventional classification by the compositional concept representation languages BERN-WARD and GRAIL, GfKL96.Google Scholar
  13. Snomed III (1993), American College of Pathology, Skokie, IL.Google Scholar
  14. SOWA J. F. (ED.) (1991). Principles of Semantic Networks. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo CA.Google Scholar
  15. WINSTON M. E.; CHAFFIN R. and HERRMANN D. (1987). A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations. Cognitive Science 11: 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Bernauer
    • 1
  • Mareike Schoop
    • 2
  • Dominik Schoop
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Medical InformaticsUniversity of HildesheimHildesheimGermany
  2. 2.Medical Informatics Group, Department for Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations