Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Samwald   ore 2014
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Samwald ore 2014

96

Published on

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
96
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An update on Genomic CDS A complex ontology for pharmacogenomics / personalized medicine and clinical decision support Matthias Samwald, José Antonio Minarro-Giménez Medical University of Vienna W3C Semantic Web for Healthcare and Life Science Interest Group
  • 2. Drug efficacy and toxicity can vary drastically between patients with different genetic profiles Up to 100,000 deaths and 2 million hospitalizations are caused by adverse drug reactions per year in the United States alone.
  • 3. Goals of ontology development • Providing a simple and concise formalism for representing pharmacogenomic knowledge • Finding errors and lacking definitions in pharmacogenomic knowledge bases • Automatically assigning alleles and phenotypes to patients • Matching patients to clinically appropriate pharmacogenomic guidelines and clinical decision support messages • Being able to detect inconsistencies between pharmacogenomics treatment guidelines from different sources.
  • 4. This is how it actually looks in the ontology Class: rs1057911 SubClassOf: polymorphism Annotations: rsid "rs1057911", relevant_for CYP2C9, can_be_tested_with 23andMe_v2, can_be_tested_with 23andMe_v3, can_be_tested_with Affymetrix_DMET_chip, rdfs:seeAlso <http://bio2rdf.org/dbsnp:rs1057911>, dbsnp_orientation_on_reference_genome "forward" Class: rs1057911_A SubClassOf: rs1057911 Class: rs1057911_T SubClassOf: rs1057911 DisjointClasses: rs1057911_A, rs1057911_T
  • 5. Examples of OWL axioms to represent humans with homozygous or heterozygous genotypes. Humans usually have two copies of each gene (and hence each polymorphism occurs twice) Class: human_with_genotype_rs1057911_variant_A_A SubClassOf: has exactly 2 rs1057911_A Class: human_with_genotype_rs1057911_variant_A_T SubClassOf: has some rs1057911_A and has some rs1057911_T
  • 6. An excerpt of a translational allele/haplotype table for the gene CYP2C9
  • 7. An excerpt of a translational allele/haplotype table for the gene CYP2C9
  • 8. An excerpt of a translational allele/haplotype table for the gene CYP2C9
  • 9. Examples of scenarios where automated scripts helped in the curation of haplotype definitions
  • 10. Dosing guideline from a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug label
  • 11. An excerpt of a CDS rule derived from the warfarin drug label Class: 'human triggering CDS rule 9' Annotations: CDS_message "0.5-2 mg warfarin per day should be considered as a starting dose range for a patient with this genotype according to the warfarin drug label.”, relevant_for Warfarin, recommendation_importance "Important modification" EquivalentTo: human and (has some 'CYP2C9 *1') and (has some 'CYP2C9 *3') and (has exactly 2 rs9923231_T)
  • 12. An example of how pharmacogenomic findings about an individual patient can be represented Individual: ‘John Doe’ Types: human, (has some rs6025_C) and (has some rs6025_T), (has some rs9934438_A) and (has some rs9934438_G), has exactly 2 rs12979860_T, has exactly 2 rs9923231_T, (has some ‘CYP2C9*1’) and (has some ‘CYP2C9*3’), has exactly 2 ‘CYP2D6*2’
  • 13. An example of how pharmacogenomic findings about an individual patient can be represented Individual: ‘John Doe’ Types: human, (has some rs6025_C) and (has some rs6025_T), (has some rs9934438_A) and (has some rs9934438_G), has exactly 2 rs12979860_T, has exactly 2 rs9923231_T, (has some ‘CYP2C9*1’) and (has some ‘CYP2C9*3’), has exactly 2 ‘CYP2D6*2’ "0.5 - 2 mg warfarin per day should be considered as a starting dose range for a patient with this genotype according to the warfarin drug label." OWL Reasoner
  • 14. Some basic statistics The ontology currently represents • 336 SNPs with 707 variants • 665 haplotypes related to 43 genes • 22 rules related to human phenotypes • 308 dosage recommendations rules It is made up of approximately • 22.000 axioms • 7.700 logical axioms • 4.100 classes
  • 15. Time taken by different reasoners for classifying and realising the demo ontology. Ontologies have ALCQ expressivity. System specifications: Windows 7 Professional, java version 1.6.0_29-b11 and 64 bit platform running on an Intel Core i5-2430M and 4GB of memory
  • 16. Ontology development and application was characterized by cycling through 3 emotional stages
  • 17. Ontology development and application was characterized by cycling through 3 emotional stages
  • 18. Ontology development and application was characterized by cycling through 3 emotional stages
  • 19. The good • Majority of primary goals of ontology development have largely been met o But devil is in the details, and there are roadblocks for practical application • Helped to find concise formalisation and identify pitfalls that might have been overlooked with another approach, at least initially • Manchester Syntax is easily readable with this ontology o Some decision support axioms were curated by medical student who wrote them down in Manchester Syntax with minimal training
  • 20. The challenging • TrOWL still performs best among freely available reasoners by a wide margin, but still might only provide partial results o Seems complete, but hard to tell for sure o Bad for critical applications such as health care o Predictable incompleteness would be better than unpredictable incompleteness • Konclude also worked and is complete, need to evaluate further (as well as other commercial reasoners)
  • 21. The challenging • OWL approach pushed everything firmly into ‘research prototype’ mode o Still feels quite adventerous and somewhat burdensome when used for mission-critical applications o We re-implemented part of the reasoning process with our own code to get rid of OWL for mission critical inferences (this also helped to make decision support algorithms run on Android)
  • 22. The challenging • Awkward moment when starting reasoner after extending/modifying the ontology: will it still terminate within an acceptable timespan? o Quite unpredictable, shrouds development process in doubt o It would be great if all reasoners would ship with end-user friendly heuristics describing ontology features known to significantly decrease performance
  • 23. The challenging • After implementing 80% of the needed features in an elegant OWL 2 DL ontology, I found that the missing 20% cannot be expressed in OWL… o There should be more end-user friendly documentation describing patterns that might seem as if they could be handled by a specific reasoner, but cannot actually be handled. o For me: realizing that I would need cardinality restrictions on transitive properties / property paths, but that is a no-go. Sigh.
  • 24. The bad • TrOWL did not alert us about some errors while other reasoners did. Some of the time. • But those other reasoners often could not explain the errors either (waiting forever), so not very helpful with the complex ontology we are working with. • When explanations were available, it was often very tricky to spot the actual mistake o Need (even) better explanation summaries o A few times the error reports seemed to be errors by the reasoners, since explanations did not make sense and we were unable to find a cause ourselves
  • 25. The bad • If reasoning takes long / forever, no easy means for profiling to find out what is causing performance problems, therefore difficult to fix
  • 26. All this is part of a larger project
  • 27. Thanks W3C collaborators: Michel Dumontier (Carleton University) Robert R. Freimuth (Mayo Clinic) Richard Boyce (University of Pittsburgh) Simon Lin (Marshfield Clinic) Robert L. Powers (Predictive Medicine, Inc.) Joanne S. Luciano (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) Eric Prud’hommeaux (W3C) M. Scott Marshall (MAASTRO Clinic) Funding: Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [PP 25608-N15] http://www.genomic-cds.org/ http://safety-code.org/

×