Lexically suggest, logically define: Quality assurance of the use of qualifiers and expected results of post-coordination in SNOMED CT

A study of the use of common qualifiers in SNOMED CT definitions and the resulting classification was undertaken using combined lexical and semantic techniques. The accuracy of SNOMED authors in formulating definitions for pre-coordinated concepts was taken as a proxy for the expected accuracy of users formulating post-coordinated expressions. The study focused on "acute" and "chronic" as used within a module based on the UMLS CORE Problem List and using the pattern of SNOMED CT's definition Acute disease and Chronic disease. Scripts were used to identify potential candidate concepts whose names suggested that they should be classified as acute or chronic findings. The potential candidates were filtered by local clinical experts to eliminate spurious lexical matches. Scripts were then use to determine which of the filtered candidates were not classified under acute or chronic findings as expected. The results were that 28% and 20% of candidate chronic and acute concepts, respectively, were not so classified. Of these candidate misclassifications, the large majority occurred because "acute" and "chronic" are sometimes specified by qualifiers for clinical course and sometimes for morphology, a fact mentioned but not fully detailed in the User Guide distributed with the SNOMED releases. This heterogeneous representation reflects a potential conflict between common usage in patient care and SNOMED's origins in pathology. Other incidental findings included questions about the qualifier hierarchies themselves and issues with the underlying model for anatomy. The effort required for the study was kept modest by using module extraction and scripts, showing that such quality assurance of SNOMED is practical. The results of a preliminary study using proxy measures must be taken with caution. However, the high rate of misclassification indicates that, until the specifications for qualifiers are better documented and/or brought more in line with common clinical usage, anyone attempting to use post-coordination in SNOMED CT must be aware that there are significant pitfalls.

[1]  Westone,et al.  Home Page , 2004, 2022 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Cybernetics Technology & Applications (ICICyTA).

[2]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  Terminological systems: bridging the generation gap , 1997, AMIA.

[3]  Kent A. Spackman,et al.  SNOMED RT: a reference terminology for health care , 1997, AMIA.

[4]  Kent A. Spackman,et al.  A "lexically-suggested logical closure" metric for medical terminology maturity , 1998, AMIA.

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

[6]  Bernardo Cuenca Grau,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles , 2009 .

[7]  Franz Baader,et al.  SNOMED reaching its adolescence: Ontologists' and logicians' health check , 2009, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[8]  Olivier Bodenreider,et al.  Using the Abstraction Network in Complement to Description Logics for Quality Assurance in Biomedical Terminologies - A Case Study in SNOMED CT , 2010, MedInfo.

[9]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  FaCT++ Description Logic Reasoner: System Description , 2006, IJCAR.

[10]  John D. Olson,et al.  College of American Pathologists , 2020, Definitions.

[11]  Sean Bechhofer,et al.  Igniting the OWL 1.1 Touch Paper: The OWL API , 2007, OWLED.

[12]  Michael Lawley,et al.  Exploiting Fast Classification of SNOMED CT for Query and Integration of Health Data , 2008, KR-MED.

[13]  Clement J. McDonald,et al.  The UMLS-CORE project: a study of the problem list terminologies used in large healthcare institutions , 2010, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[14]  Werner Ceusters,et al.  Ontology-Based Error Detection in SNOMED-CT® , 2004, MedInfo.

[15]  Robert Stevens,et al.  Embedding Knowledge Patterns into OWL , 2009, ESWC.

[16]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[17]  James Geller,et al.  Structural group-based auditing of missing hierarchical relationships in UMLS , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[18]  Yarden Katz,et al.  Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner , 2007, J. Web Semant..

[19]  Stefan Schulz,et al.  Relationship Groups in SNOMED CT , 2009, MIE.

[20]  Sam Brandt,et al.  Getting the foot out of the pelvis: modeling problems affecting use of SNOMED CT hierarchies in practical applications , 2011, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[21]  Kent A. Spackman,et al.  Role grouping as an extension to the description logic of Ontylog, motivated by concept modeling in SNOMED , 2002, AMIA.

[22]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook , 2007 .

[23]  Franz Baader,et al.  Pushing the EL Envelope , 2005, IJCAI.

[24]  Alan L. Rector,et al.  Ontological and Practical Issues in Using a Description Logic to Represent Medical Concept Systems: Experience from GALEN , 2006, Reasoning Web.