Summary
Anatomical notions provide the foundations for much clinical terminology. However, clinicians’ concerns are notoriously practical. The goal in clinical terminology is not to represent anatomy for its own sake, but rather to facilitate faithful communication by clinicians about what they have heard, seen thought and done in their care of patients. The focus of clinical anatomy is therefore the interaction between the locus of disease and partonomy - that diseases of parts are, with specific exceptions, diseases of the whole. Clinical anatomy must also accommodate the clinical/functional view as well as the structural view basic to classic anatomy. One means of doing so in current ontology formalisms is through a hierarchy of relations. There are a number of problems where there is no consensus on solutions. Of particular importance are the relations of tissues and substances to structures and representation of characteristics collective effects of entities such as cells, One approach to this issue is discussed here. Finally, there is currently no expressively adequate and computationally tractable means for expressing abnormal and variant anatomy. All resources are explicitly about ”normative anatomy”. In dealing with all of these problems it is essential to separate issues of ”terminology” - i.e. the labeling of entities from their formal definitions and relations. Clinicians frequently use terms that anatomist now consider obsolete or deprecated. However, a distinction should be drawn between the mere renaming of an entity - however well motivated - and more fundamental revision as to its structure or function.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aldo Gangemi, Nicola Guarino, Claudio Masolo, Alesandro Oltramari, and Luc Schneider.Sweetening ontologies with dolce. In A Gmez-Perez and V Richard Benjamins, editors, European Knowledge AquisitionWorkshop (EKAW-2002), pages 166–181, Siguenza,Spain, 2002. Spring Verlag.
Pierre Grenon, B Smith, and L Golberg. Biodynamic ontology: Applying bfo in thebiomedical domain. In D M Pisanelli, editor, Ontologies in Medicine, pages 20–38. IOSPress, Amsterdam, 2004.
Nicola Guarino and Chis Welty. An overview of ontoclean. In S Staab and R Studer,editors, Handbook of Ontologies, pages 151–159. Springer Verlag, 2004.
Udo Hahn, Stefan Schulz, and Martin Romacker. Partonomic reasoning as taxonomicreasoning in medicine. In Proc. of the 16th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence & 11th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99/IAAI-99), pages 271–276, Orlando FL, 1999. AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Ingvar Johansson. On the transitivity of parthood relations. In H. Hochberg and K. Mulligan,editors, Relations and Predicates, pages 161–181. Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, 2004.
J L V Mejino and C Rosse. Conceptualization of anatomical spatial entities in the digitalanatomist foundational model. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association,(1999 Annual Symposium Special Issue):112–116, 1999.
Peter Mork and Philip Bernstein. Adapting a generic match algorithm to align ontologiesof human anatomy. In 20th International Conference on Data Engineering, Boston, 2004.IEEE.
Peter Mork, Rachel Pottinger, and Philip Bernstein. Challenges in precisely aligningmodels of human anatomy. In Marius Fieschi, Enrioco Coiera, and Yu-Chuan Jack Li,editors, Proceedings of Medinfo 2004, pages 401–405, San Francisco, CA, 2004. IMIA.
James J Odell. Six different kinds of composition. Journal of Object Oriented Programming,5(8):10–15, 1994. A clear presentation, apparently taken from Winston et al 87.Distinguishes: component-integral object, material-object (made-of), portion-object (sliceof bread, loaf), place-area (city-state), member-bunch, member-partnership (as a kind ofmember-bunch). These he distinguishes from non-partitive relations: topological inclusion(seems confussed to me with place-area), classification inclusion (i.e. kind-of), attribution,attachment, ownership. Then gives smashing examples of transitivity and showshow the transitivity of each type is distinct.
AL Rector, A Gangemi, E Galeazzi, AJ Glowinski, and A Rossi-Mori. The galen coremodel schemata for anatomy: Towards a re-usable application-independent model ofmedical concepts. In P Barahona, M Veloso, and J Bryant, editors, Twelfth International Congress of the European Federation for Medical Informatics, MIE-94, pages 229–233,Lisbon, Portugal, 1994.
A.L. Rector and J.E Rogers. Ontological and practical issues in using a description logicto represent medical concept systems: Experience from galen. In P Barahona, F Bry,E Franconi, N Henze, and U Sattler, editors, Reasoning Web, LNCS 4162, pages 197–231. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2006.
Alan Rector, Jeremy Rogers, and Thomas Bittner. Granularity, scale & collectivity: Whensize does and does not matter. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 39(3):333–349, 2006.httxp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2005.08.010.
Alan L Rector. Defaults, context and knowledge: Alternatives for owl-indexed knowledgebases. In Russ B Altman, A Keith Dunker, Lawrence Hunter, Tiffany A Jung, and Teri EKlein, editors, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB-2004), pages 226–238, Kona,Hawaii, 2004. World Scientific.
JE Rogers and AL Rector. Galen’s model of parts and wholes: Experience and comparisons.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, ((Fall symposiumspecial issue)):819–823, 2000.3 Anatomy for Clinical Terminology 57
C Rosse, I G Shapiro, and J F Brinkley. The digital anatomist foundational model: Principlesfor defining and structuring its concept domain. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, (1998 Fall Symposium Special issue):820–824, 1998.
Stefan Schulz and Udo Hahn. Mereotopological reasoning about parts and (w)holes inbio-ontologies. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001), pages 210–221,Ogunquit, ME, 2001. ACM.
Stefan Schulz, Udo Hahn, and Martin Romacker. Modeling anatomical spatial relationswith description logics. In JM Overhage, editor, AMIA Fall Symposium (AMIA-2000),pages 799–783, Los Angeles, CA, 2000. Hanly & Belfus.
Barry Smith. The basic tools of formal ontology. In Nicola Guarino, editor, Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), pages 19–28, Amsterdam, 1998. IOS Press (Frontiersin Artificial Intelligence and Applications).
Barry Smith, W Ceusters, B Klagges, J Kohler, A Kumar, J Lomax, CJ Mungall,F Neuhause, A Rector, and C Rosse. Relations in biomedical ontologies. Genome Biology,6(5):46, 2006.
C Welty and N Guarino. Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships.Data and Knowledge Engineering, 39(1):51–74, 2001.
MEWinston, R Chaffin, and D Hermann. A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11:417–444, 1987. find.
Songmao Zhang and Olivier Bodenreider. Comparing associative concepts among equivalentconcepts across ontologies. In Marius Fieschi, Enrioco Coiera, and Yu-Chuan JackLi, editors, Medinfo-2004, pages 459–464, San Francisco, CA, 2004. IMIA, IOS Press.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Albert Burger, Duncan Davidson, Richard Baldock
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rector, A.L. (2008). Anatomy for Clinical Terminology. In: Burger, A., Davidson, D., Baldock, R. (eds) Anatomy Ontologies for Bioinformatics. Computational Biology, vol 6. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-885-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-885-2_3
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-884-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-885-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)