A Clinical Data Analytic Metric for Medical Ontology Using Semantic Similarity

  • Suraiya ParveenEmail author
  • Ranjit Biswas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Vision and Biomechanics book series (LNCVB, volume 30)


Ontology is a set of concepts in a domain that shows their properties and the relations between them. Medical domain Ontology is widely used and very popular in e-healthcare, medical information systems, etc. The most significant benefit that Ontology may bring to healthcare systems is its ability to support the indispensable integration of knowledge and data (Pisanelli et al, Proceedings biological and medical data analysis, 6th international symposium, 2005, [1]). Graph structure is very important tool for Foundation, Analysis, and Domain Knowledge. Ontology as a graphical model envisages the process of any system and present appropriate analysis (Pedrinaci, Ontology-based metrics computation for business process analysis, [2]). In this study, the knowledge provided by the Ontology is further explored to obtain the related concepts. An algorithm to compute the related concepts of Ontology is also proposed in a simplified manner using Boolean Matrix. The inferences from this study may serve to improve the diagnosis process in the field of Biomedical Intelligence and Clinical Data Analysis.


Ontology Semantic similarity Graph structure Similarity matching coefficient 


  1. 1.
    Pisanelli DM, Pinciroli F, Masseroli M (2005) The Ontological lens: zooming in and out from genomic to clinical level. In: Proceedings biological and medical data analysis, 6th international symposium, Nov 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pedrinaci D (2009) Ontology-based metrics computation for business process analysis, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riañoa D, Joan FR, López A, Sara VF, Patrizia E, Roberta M (2012) Annicchiaricod carlo caltagironede: an ontology-based personalization of health-care knowledge to support clinical decisions for chronically ill patients. J Biomed Inform 45(3):429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pérez G, López F, Corcho O (2004) Ontological engineering, 2nd printing. Springer, Berlin. ISBN: 1-85233-551-3Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biswas R, Gaur D (2008) Fuzzy meta node fuzzy metagraph and its cluster analysis. J Comput Sci 4(11):922–927. ISSN: 1549-3636Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batet M,Valls A, Giber K (2008) Measuring similarities in ontology by means of Boolean metrices, Intelligent Technologies for Advanced Knowledge Acquisition, Department of Computer Engineering and Maths, Universitat Rovira i VirgiliGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barthélemy M, Chow E, Eliassi-Rad T (2005) Knowledge representation issues in semantic graphs for relationship detection, U.S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-CONF-209845Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu Z, Palmer M (1994) Verb semantics and lexical selection. In: 32nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leacock C, Chodorow M (1998) Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. In: Fellbaum C (ed) WordNet: an electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 265–283Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Mubaid H, Nguyen HA (2006) New ontology-based semantic similarity measure for the biomedical domain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on granular computing, GrC-2006, Atlanta, GA, 10–12 May 2006, pp 623–628Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pedersen T, Patwardhan S, Michelizzi J (2004) WordNet: similarity –measuring the relatedness of concepts. AAAI, pp 1024–1025Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang X, Jing L, Hu X, Ng M, Zhou X (2007) A comparative study of ontology based term similarity measures on PubMed document clustering. In: Advances in databases: concepts, systems and applications DASFAA, vol 4443, pp 115–126Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Segaran T (2007) Programming collective intelligence: building smart Web 2.0 applications. Beijing, O’ReillyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samantha D (2001) Classic data structure. PHIGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Veltkamp RC, Latecki LJ (2006) Properties and performances of shape similarity measuresGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & EngineeringSEST, Jamia HamdardNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations