Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Ontology and RadLex Robert Arp, Ph.D.

on

  • 1,005 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,005
Views on SlideShare
990
Embed Views
15

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

1 Embed 15

http://cannocchiale.wordpress.com 15

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ego/GTerm?id=GO:0001781

Ontology and RadLex Robert Arp, Ph.D. Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Ontology and RadLex Robert Arp, Ph.D. Ontology Research Group (ORG) www.org.buffalo.edu National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) www.bioontology.org This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, Grant 1 U 54 HG004028. Information on the National Centers for Biomedical Computing can be found at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/bioinformatics .
  • 2. Problem: radiologist wondering if radiation therapy in chest is linked to Cauda Equina Syndrome in lower back. she needs data and information to find a solution - calls colleagues - sends emails - queries RadLex
  • 3. Problem: radiologist wondering if radiation therapy in chest is linked to Cauda Equina Syndrome in lower back. She needs data and information to find a solution - calls colleagues - sends emails - queries RadLex
  • 4. RadLex: A Lexicon for Uniform Indexing and Retrieval of Radiology Information Resources
  • 5. RadLex: A Lexicon for Uniform Indexing and Retrieval of Radiology Information Resources direct result of the information age and information science
  • 6. Informatics: the science of data and information collection, categorization, management, storage, processing, retrieval, and dissemination.
  • 7. Informatics: the science of data and information collection, categorization, management, storage, processing, retrieval , and dissemination . retrieval and dissemination: the goal of information science
  • 8. Informatics: the science of data and information collection, categorization , management , storage, processing, retrieval, and dissemination. but goal depends upon accurate categorization and management
  • 9. Computers are dumb beasts: At this point,* they can mostly only accurately output what we accurately input. * Not ruling out the possibility of human-like thinking in the future
  • 10. So, a central informatics problem that hampers retrieval and dissemination is : incorrect thinking (IT) associated with categorization and management of data and information
  • 11. Can’t get the data and/or info: - radiologist gives up the search in frustration - cure is not found - suffering is not relieved* * moral obligation to retrieve and disseminate data and information?
  • 12. To combat incorrect thinking (IT) and assist in the accurate categorization and management of data and information so that retrieval and dissemination is maximally possible: ontologies are used
  • 13.
    • What is an ontology?
    • Philosophical Ontology
    • Domain Ontology
    • Formal Ontology
  • 14.
    • Philosophical Ontology
    • “ ...I can fit wholesale evolution and a creating god into my ontology without contradiction.”
    • “ ...just because it has mental existence doesn’t mean it has ontological existence.”
  • 15. - Ontos (being, existence) + Logos (word, account, explanation) - The study of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects, properties, events, processes, and relations in every area of reality - “The branch of Metaphysics that studies the nature of existence.” Random House College Dictionary
  • 16.  
  • 17. PORPHYRIAN TREE Compare: Linnean Taxonomy and Periodic Table
  • 18. PORPHYRIAN TREE Compare: Linnean Taxonomy and Periodic Table Sub-types (children) should inherit all the features of the relevant type (parent)
  • 19. PORPHYRIAN TREE Compare: Linnean Taxonomy and Periodic Table Sub-types (children) should inherit all the features of the relevant type (parent) A is_a B that/which Cs A is_a B that/which has Cs - rational animal (A) is_a living entity with sensation (B) that has the capacity for conscious thinking (C) Sub-types (children) should inherit all the features of the relevant type (parent) along with some differentia (distinguishing feature)
  • 20. A is_a B that/which Cs A is_a B that/which has Cs
    • radiology (A) is_a science (B) that deals with medical imaging so as to understand, diagnose… (C)
    • domain ontology is_a ontology that deals with a specific area, sphere, or portion of reality
    • - mouse trap is_a rodent trap which captures mice
  • 21. To a certain extent, all of us are Philosophical Ontologists in that we naturally and automatically categorize any and all things in reality so as to understand, explain, control, dominate, and navigate reality.
  • 22.
    • What is an ontology?
    • Philosophical Ontology
    • Domain Ontology
    • Formal Ontology
  • 23. (2) Domain Ontology “ ...I’m working on an ontology for annelids.” “ ...the Gene Ontology has data on that HOX gene.”
  • 24.
    • Representation of the entities and relations existing within a particular domain of reality such as biology, medicine, geography, ecology, or law
    • - Gene Ontology (GO)
    • - Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA)
    • Environment Ontology (EnvO)
    • See http://www.obofoundry.org/
  • 25. - Opposed to ontology in the philosophical sense, which has all of reality as its subject matter - Ideally, provides a controlled, structured vocabulary to annotate data in order to make it more easily searchable by human beings and processable by computers
  • 26. ONTOLOGY: “a representational artifact, comprising a taxonomy as its main part, whose representational units are intended to designate some combination of universals, defined classes, and certain relations between them.” * * Smith, B., Kusnierczyk, W., Schober, D., & Ceusters, W. (2006). Towards a reference terminology for ontology research and development in the biomedical domain. Proceedings of KR-MED 2006, 1, 1-14.
  • 27. Domain ontology contrasted with: - Database - Rule-Based Language - Thesaurus - Glossary - Catalogue - Inventory - Axiomatic Theory - Simple Taxonomy
    • Ontology hybrid of:
    • - Taxonomy
    • Various Relations
    • Axiomatic Rules of Inference
  • 28. Domain ontology contrasted with: - Database - Rule-Based Language - Thesaurus - Glossary - Catalogue - Inventory - Axiomatic Theory - Simple Taxonomy RadLex, as of now, is a thesaurus of terms, although confuses terms and entities those terms refer to…
  • 29. Simple Taxonomy: is_a, sub-type relation Basic Mouse Trap Classification
  • 30. Beginnings of Mouse Trap Domain Ontology
  • 31. Beginnings of MRI Test Ontology
  • 32. A Gene Ontology Example: Cytokinesis
  • 33. is_a ─ part_of ─ A Gene Ontology Example
  • 34. Part of a Scientific Experiment Ontology
  • 35. Part of a Scientific Experiment Ontology p/o = part_of  = is_a
  • 36. Now, it’s fine to have all of these domain ontologies attempting to classify and categorize data and information… But, there is so much data and information…
  • 37.  
  • 38.  
  • 39.  
  • 40.  
  • 41.  
  • 42.  
  • 43. Crazy and overwhelming, isn’t it?
  • 44. So, instead of using a STANDARD like the Periodic Table of Elements, people start classifying things their own different ways… this results in…
  • 45. SILO EFFECT
  • 46. SILO EFFECT
  • 47. PROBLEM: DE-SILOING all of this domain data and information so that it may be queried effectively, shared, and re-used INTEROPERABILITY
  • 48. PROBLEM: DE-SILOING all of this domain data and information so that it may be queried effectively, shared, and re-used INTEROPERABILITY
  • 49. SOLUTION:
  • 50. FORMAL ONTOLOGY: - Upper-level - Applicable to any domain
  • 51.
    • What is an ontology?
    • Philosophical Ontology
    • Domain Ontology
    • Formal Ontology
  • 52. Assists in making communication between and among domain ontologies possible by providing: - Common language - Common formal framework for reasoning
  • 53. So, just as ENGLISH is a common world language enabling different people to communicate in common So too, FORMAL ONTOLOGY is a common “language” enabling different domain ontologies to communicate in common
  • 54. Formal ontology is like a backbone or spine making communication, interoperability, and optimal dissemination of data and information possible between and among domain ontologies
  • 55. Formal ontology is like a backbone or spine making communication, interoperability, and optimal dissemination of data and information possible between and among domain ontologies
  • 56. From this… To this…
  • 57. From this… To this… From this… To this…
  • 58. Basic Formal Ontology (BFO)
  • 59. REALISM-BASED ONTOLOGY Universals (1) real objects, substances, endurants, or continuants - SNAP shots of reality (2) real processes, activities, perdurants, or occurrents - SPAN of time Relations is_a, part_of, has_participant...
  • 60. continuants vs. occurrents
    • In classifying parts of reality, we keep track of these two different kinds of entities in two different ways
    continuant (substance, object) t i m e occurrent (process)
  • 61.
    • continuant entities
    • - have continuous existence in time
    • - preserve their identity through change
    • - exist in toto , if they exist at all
    • occurrent entities
    • - have temporal parts
    • - unfold themselves phase by phase
    • - exist only in their phases/stages
  • 62.
    • continuant entities
    • - have continuous existence in time
    • - preserve their identity through change
    • - exist in toto , if they exist at all
    • occurrent entities
    • - have temporal parts
    • - unfold themselves phase by phase
    • - exist only in their phases/stages
    objects, qualities, functions processes, activities
  • 63. continuant Relation: is_a Sub-types (children) should inherit all the features of the relevant type (parent)
  • 64. continuant human heart surface of the heart all hearts in this room a biopsy of the heart chest cavity pink, smooth stops if no circulation pumps blood prop in a display HUMAN HEART
  • 65. occurrent Relation: is_a
  • 66. occurrent ECG (EKG) test start/end of ECG all ECGs in clinic 2 nd lead attached activities in clinic s/t ECG began s/t region of ECG moment ECG began time occupied ECG/EKG TEST ECG/EKG TEST
  • 67.
    • Philosophical Ontology
    • Domain Ontology
    • Formal Ontology
  • 68. Basic principles from philosophical ontology and formal ontology can assist a domain like radiology and a domain ontology like RadLex (although, RadLex is at the beginning stages of a domain ontology)
  • 69. Fundamental Step: Clear up the incorrect thinking (IT) in Radlex
  • 70. Incorrect Thinking (IT): - simply getting the facts wrong - perception/reality confusions - using examples instead of definitions when defining something - circular definitions - equivocation of terms - use/mention confusions - unclear or incoherent definitions
  • 71. Incorrect Thinking (IT):
    • these are just a few…
    • many more problems…
    • problems are legion in databases
    • we’ll look at just a few problems in RadLex
  • 72.  
  • 73. IT: simply getting the facts wrong: True, these are all terms, but the terms are supposed to be referring to the actual entities in reality; confusing classification of terms with a taxonomy of things
  • 74. IT: simply getting the facts wrong: Is a substance a subtype of term? Is an imaging procedure attribute a sub-type of term? None of these are terms, they are things.
  • 75.
    • IT: unclear or incoherent definitions:
    • imaging procedure attribute
    • is not really a child/sub-type of RadLex term and
    • (b) it is the only child when, on this account, treatment, substance, etc., should be subtypes as well
  • 76. IT: use/mention confusion: At the same time these terms are being used as a taxonomy that refers to reality, and mentioned in a lexical classification. Terms are representations that refer to things, but are being treated as the things themselves… confusion!
  • 77. Where is the definition of a RadLex term? Where are some examples? How am I supposed to know what these things are? ?
  • 78. Is a biopsy an imaging purpose? Is an infusion a purpose? Is an imaging purpose an imaging procedure attribute? Where are the definitions?
  • 79. Is a biopsy a RadLex term? Is an infusion a RadLex term? Sub-types (children) should inherit all the features of the relevant type (parent)
  • 80. IT: using examples instead of definitions when defining something - I still don’t know what an imaging service request is. - Also, isn’t a request something different from exams ? - I know what an example of it might be…
  • 81. Also, isn’t a request something different from an exam or exams ? Compare: Drinking service request Def.= The drinks that can be ordered by patrons at a bar A synonym is a RadLex child, too?
  • 82. A foreign body is a child of finding? A missile, by definition, is a foreign body? I can see it playing a role as a foreign body, but its essence is to be a foreign body? Same with personal item, surgical implement, and others…
  • 83. Three Levels to Keep Straight
    • Level 1: The entities in reality such as universals and relations
    • Level 2: Cognitive representations of this reality on the part of scientists
    • Level 3: Publicly accessible concretizations of these cognitive representations in textual, graphical, or computational representational artifacts (like RadLex composed of terms)
  • 84.
    • Cognitive representations
    • Representational artifacts
    • Reality
    Three Levels to Keep Straight
  • 85. - Bertaud, V., Belhadj, I., Dameron, O., Garcelon, N., Hendaoui, L., Marin, F., & Duvauferrier, R. (2007). Computerizing the radiological sign. Journal of Radiology, 88, 27-37. - Fielding, J., & Marwede, D. (2006). Four ontological models for radiological diagnostics. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 124, 761-766. - Kahn, C., Channin, D., & Rubin, D. (2006). An ontology for PACS integration. Journal of Digital Imaging, 19, 316-327. - Marwede, D., & Fielding, M. (2005). The epistemological-ontological divide in clinical radiology. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 116, 749-754. - Pommert, A., Höhne, K., Pflesser, B., Richter, E., Riemer, M., Schiemann, T., Schubert, R., Schumacher, U., & Tiede, U. (2001). Creating a high-resolution spatial/symbolic model of the inner organs based on the visible human. Medical Image Analysis, 5, 221-228. - Rubin, D. (2007). Creating and curating a terminology for radiology: Ontology modeling and analysis. Journal of Digital Imaging . Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/ 978708n776738132/fulltext.pdf. - Rubin, D., Dameron, O., Bashir, Y., Grossman, D., Dev, P., & Musen, M. (2006). Using ontologies linked with geometric models to reason about penetrating injuries. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 37, 167-176. Radiology and Ontology Literature
  • 86. Arp, R., Romagnoli, C., Chhem, R., & Overton, J. (2008). Radiological and Biomedical Knowledge Integration: The Ontological Way. In R. Chhem, K. Hibbert, & T. Van Deven (Eds.), Radiology Education (Chapter 8, pp. 87-104). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  • 87.
    • Baxevanis, A., & Ouellette, B. (2005). Bioinformatics: A practical guide to the analysis of genes and proteins . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    • Berman, J. (2006). Biomedical informatics . London: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
    • Chen, H., Fuller, S., Friedman, C., & Hersh, W. (2005). Medical informatics: Knowledge management and data mining in biomedicine . The Netherlands: Springer.
    • Goldstein, D., Groen, P., Ponkshe, S., & Wine, M. (2007). Medical informatics 20/20: Quality and electronic health records through collaboration, open solutions, and innovation . New York: Jones & Bartlett.
    • Polanski, A., & Kimmel, M. (2007). Bioinformatics . London: Springer.
    • Shortliffe, E., & Cimino, J. (Eds.). (2006). Biomedical informatics: Computer applications in health care and biomedicine . London: Springer.
    • van Bemmel, J., & Musen, M. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of medical informatics . The Netherlands: Springer.
    • Xiong, J. (2006). Essential bioinformatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Biomedical Informatics Literature
  • 88.
    • Arp, R. (2007). Philosophical ontology, domain ontology, formal ontology. The Reasoner, 1, 12-13.
    • Bittner, T., Donnelly, M., & Winter, S. (2006). Ontology and semantic operability. In S. Zlatanova & D. Prosperi (Eds.), Large-scale 3D data integration: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 139-160). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    • Ceusters, W., Smith, B., & van Mol, M. (2003). Using ontology in query answering systems: Scenarios, requirements and challenges. Proceedings of the 2nd CoLogNET-ElsNET Symposium, Amsterdam, 2, 5-15.
    • Grenon, P., & Smith, B. (2004). SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1, 1-10.
    • Grenon, P., & Smith, B. (2004a). A formal theory of substances, qualities and universals. In A. Varzi and L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings of FOIS 2004. International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems (pp. 49-59). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    • Mars, N. (Ed.). (1995). Towards very large knowledge bases: Knowledge building and knowledge sharing . Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    • Menzel, C. (2003). Ontology theory. In J. Euzenat, A. Gomez-Perez, N. Guarino, & H. Stuckenschmidt (Eds.), Ontologies and semantic interoperability (pp. 13-30). Hamburg: IOS Press.
    • Smith, B. (2003). Ontology. In L. Floridi (Ed.), Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information (pp. 155-166). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    • Smith, B., & Ceusters, W. (2007). Ontology as the core discipline of biomedical informatics: Legacies of the past and recommendations for the future direction of research. In G. Crnkovic & S. Stuart (Eds.), Computing, philosophy, and cognitive science (pp. 121-145). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
    • Smith, B., Kumar, A., & Bittner, T. (2004). Basic Formal Ontology for bioinformatics. Available at: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~akumar/JAIS.pdf .
    Domain and Formal Ontology Literature
  • 89. Thank You Robert Arp, Ph.D. Ontology Research Group (ORG) www.org.buffalo.edu National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) www.bioontology.org This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, Grant 1 U 54 HG004028. Information on the National Centers for Biomedical Computing can be found at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/bioinformatics .