Dataset Information

Enhancing Clinical Data and Clinical Research Data with Biomedical Ontologies - Insights from the Knowledge Representation Perspective.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:There exists a communication gap between the biomedical informatics community on one side and the computer science/artificial intelligence community on the other side regarding the meaning of the terms "semantic integration" and "knowledge representation". This gap leads to approaches that attempt to provide one-to-one mappings between data elements and biomedical ontologies. Our aim is to clarify the representational differences between traditional data management and semantic-web-based data management by providing use cases of clinical data and clinical research data re-representation. We discuss how and why one-to-one mappings limit the advantages of using Semantic Web Technologies (SWTs). METHODS:We employ commonly used SWTs, such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Ontology Web Language (OWL). We reuse pre-existing ontologies and ensure shared ontological commitment by selecting ontologies from a framework that fosters community-driven collaborative ontology development for biomedicine following the same set of principles. RESULTS:We demonstrate the results of providing SWT-compliant re-representation of data elements from two independent projects managing clinical data and clinical research data. Our results show how one-to-one mappings would hinder the exploitation of the advantages provided by using SWT. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that SWT-compliant re-representation is an indispensable step, if using the full potential of SWT is the goal. Rather than providing one-to-one mappings, developers should provide documentation that links data elements to graph structures to specify the re-representation.

SUBMITTER: Bona JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6697506 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enhancing Clinical Data and Clinical Research Data with Biomedical Ontologies - Insights from the Knowledge Representation Perspective.

Bona Jonathan P JP Prior Fred W FW Zozus Meredith N MN Brochhausen Mathias M

Yearbook of medical informatics 20190816 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>There exists a communication gap between the biomedical informatics community on one side and the computer science/artificial intelligence community on the other side regarding the meaning of the terms "semantic integration" and "knowledge representation". This gap leads to approaches that attempt to provide one-to-one mappings between data elements and biomedical ontologies. Our aim is to clarify the representational differences between traditional data management and semanti ...[more]

PMID: 31419826

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages.ResultsFrom a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers).ConclusionOur findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.

Project description:BackgroundEvery year, hundreds of thousands of patients experience treatment failure or adverse drug reactions (ADRs), many of which could be prevented by pharmacogenomic testing. However, the primary knowledge needed for clinical pharmacogenomics is currently dispersed over disparate data structures and captured in unstructured or semi-structured formalizations. This is a source of potential ambiguity and complexity, making it difficult to create reliable information technology systems for enabling clinical pharmacogenomics.MethodsWe developed Web Ontology Language (OWL) ontologies and automated reasoning methodologies to meet the following goals: 1) provide a simple and concise formalism for representing pharmacogenomic knowledge, 2) finde errors and insufficient definitions in pharmacogenomic knowledge bases, 3) automatically assign alleles and phenotypes to patients, 4) match patients to clinically appropriate pharmacogenomic guidelines and clinical decision support messages and 5) facilitate the detection of inconsistencies and overlaps between pharmacogenomic treatment guidelines from different sources. We evaluated different reasoning systems and test our approach with a large collection of publicly available genetic profiles.ResultsOur methodology proved to be a novel and useful choice for representing, analyzing and using pharmacogenomic data. The Genomic Clinical Decision Support (Genomic CDS) ontology represents 336 SNPs with 707 variants; 665 haplotypes related to 43 genes; 22 rules related to drug-response phenotypes; and 308 clinical decision support rules. OWL reasoning identified CDS rules with overlapping target populations but differing treatment recommendations. Only a modest number of clinical decision support rules were triggered for a collection of 943 public genetic profiles. We found significant performance differences across available OWL reasoners.ConclusionsThe ontology-based framework we developed can be used to represent, organize and reason over the growing wealth of pharmacogenomic knowledge, as well as to identify errors, inconsistencies and insufficient definitions in source data sets or individual patient data. Our study highlights both advantages and potential practical issues with such an ontology-based approach.

Dataset Information

Enhancing Clinical Data and Clinical Research Data with Biomedical Ontologies - Insights from the Knowledge Representation Perspective.

Publications

Enhancing Clinical Data and Clinical Research Data with Biomedical Ontologies - Insights from the Knowledge Representation Perspective.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets