An ontology design for validating childhood cancer registry data

Ontologies can provide a valuable role in the work of cancer registration, particularly as a tool for managing and navigating the various classification systems and coding rules. Further advantages accrue from the ability to formalise the coding rule base using description logics and thereby benefit from the associated automatic reasoning functionality. Drawing from earlier work that showed the viability of applying ontologies in the data validation tasks of cancer registries, an ontology was created using a modular approach to handle the specific checks for childhood cancers. The ontology was able to handle successfully the various inter-variable checks using the axiomatic constructs of the web ontology language. Application of an ontological approach for data validation can greatly simplify the maintenance of the coding rules and facilitate the federation of any centralised validation process to the local level. It also provides an improved means of visualising the rule interdependencies from different perspectives. Performance of the automatic reasoning process can be a limiting issue for very large datasets and will be a focus for future work. Results are provided showing how the ontology is able to validate cancer case records typical for childhood tumours.

[1]  L. Neamtiu,et al.  A multipurpose TNM stage ontology for cancer registries , 2022, J. Biomed. Semant..

[2]  Luciana Neamtiu,et al.  An Ontology to Model the International Rules for Multiple Primary Malignant Tumours in Cancer Registration , 2021, Applied Sciences.

[3]  Luciana Neamtiu,et al.  An ontology-based approach for developing a harmonised data-validation tool for European cancer registration , 2021, J. Biomed. Semant..

[4]  J. Olsen,et al.  The European Commission , 2020, The European Union.

[5]  C. Rodríguez-Galindo,et al.  The Toronto Guidelines: a practical means for childhood cancer staging. , 2018, The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

[6]  Aditya Khamparia,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of semantic web reasoners and tools: a survey , 2017, Education and Information Technologies.

[7]  Mark A. Musen,et al.  The protégé project: a look back and a look forward , 2015, SIGAI.

[8]  Sunitha Abburu,et al.  A Survey on Ontology Reasoners and Comparison , 2012 .

[9]  Shonali Krishnaswamy,et al.  Predicting Reasoning Performance Using Ontology Metrics , 2012, SEMWEB.

[10]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A Description Logic Primer , 2012, ArXiv.

[11]  Nicolette de Keizer,et al.  Comparison of reasoners for large ontologies in the OWL 2 EL profile , 2011, Semantic Web.

[12]  Yevgeny Kazakov,et al.  RIQ and SROIQ Are Harder than SHOIQ , 2008, KR.

[13]  H. Baxter Williams,et al.  A Survey , 1992 .

[14]  Raghava Mutharaju,et al.  OWL2Bench: A Benchmark for OWL 2 Reasoners , 2020, SEMWEB.

[15]  Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn,et al.  Algorithms for Measuring Similarity Between ELH Concept Descriptions: A Case Study on Snomed ct , 2017, Comput. Informatics.

[16]  Michel Oleynik,et al.  An Ontology for TNM Clinical Stage Inference , 2015, ONTOBRAS.

[17]  Robert Stevens,et al.  Post-coordination: Making things up as you go along , 2013 .

[18]  R. Volz,et al.  Benchmarking OWL Reasoners , 2007 .

[19]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Automated Benchmarking of Description Logic Reasoners , 2006, Description Logics.

[20]  Timo Weithöner,et al.  What ’ s Wrong with OWL Benchmarks ? , 2006 .

[21]  Karen Spärck Jones A Look Back and a Look Forward , 1988, SIGIR Forum.

[22]  E. Somers International Agency for Research on Cancer. , 1985, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[23]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Handbook of Knowledge Representation Edited Description Logics 3.1 Introduction , 2022 .