A Set of NooJ Grammars to Verify Laboratory Data Correctness

  • Francesca ParisiEmail author
  • Maria Teresa Chiaravalloti
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 987)


Semantic interoperability in clinical processes is necessary to exchange meaningful information among healthcare facilities. Standardized classification and coding systems allow for meaningful information exchange. This paper aims to support the accuracy validation of mappings between local and standardized clinical content, through the construction of NooJ syntactical grammars for recognition of local linguistic forms and detection of data correctness level. In particular, this work deals with laboratory observations, which are identified by idiosyncratic codes and names by different facilities, thus creating issues in data exchange. The Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) is an international standard for uniquely identifying laboratory and clinical observations. Mapping local concepts to LOINC allows to create links among health data systems, even though it is a cost and time-consuming process. Beyond this, in Italy LOINC experts use to manually double check all the performed mappings to validate them. This has over time become a non-trivial task because of the dimension of laboratory catalogues and the growing adoption of LOINC. The aim of this work is realizing a NooJ grammar system to support LOINC experts in validating mappings between local tests and LOINC codes. We constructed syntactical grammars to recognize local linguistic forms and determine data accuracy, and the NooJ contextual constraints to identify the threshold of correctness of each mapping. The grammars created help LOINC experts in reducing the time required for mappings validation.


NooJ Semantic annotation LOINC 


  1. 1.
    McDonald, C.J., Huff, S.M., Suico, J.G., et al.: LOINC, a universal standard for identifying laboratory observations: a 5-year update. Clin. Chem. 49, 624–633 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vreeman, D.J., Chiaravalloti, M.T., Hook, J., McDonald, C.J.: Enabling international adoption of LOINC through translation. J. Biomed. Inform. 45(4), 667–673 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vreeman, D.J., Finnell, J.T., Overhage, J.M.: A rationale for parsimonious laboratory term mapping by frequency. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, pp. 771–775 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Common LOINC Laboratory Observation Codes. Accessed 15 Sep 2018
  5. 5.
    Vreeman, D.J., McDonald, C.J.: Automated mapping of local radiology terms to LOINC. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, pp. 769–773 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dixon, B.E., Hook, J., Vreeman, D.J.: Learning from the crowd in terminology mapping: the LOINC experience. Lab Med. 46(2), 168–174 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vreeman, D.J., McDonald, C.J.: A comparison of Intelligent Mapper and document similarity scores for mapping local radiology terms to LOINC. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, pp. 809–813 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zunner, C., Bürkle, T., Prokosch, H.-U., Ganslandt, T.: Mapping local laboratory interface terms to LOINC at a German university hospital using RELMA vol 5: a semi-automated approach. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 20(2), 293–297 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zollo, K.A., Huff, S.M.: Automated mapping of observation codes using extensional definitions. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 7(6), 586–592 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fidahussein, M., Vreeman, D.J.: A corpus-based approach for automated LOINC mapping. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 21(1), 64–72 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lau, L.M., Johnson, K., Monson, K., Lam, S.H., Huff, S.M: A method for the automated mapping of laboratory results to LOINC. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, pp. 472–476 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, M.-C., Vreeman, D.J., McDonald, C.J., Huff, S.M.: Correctness of voluntary LOINC mapping for laboratory tests in three large institutions. In: AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, pp. 447–451 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Silberztein, M.: La formalisation des langues, l’approche de NooJ. ISTE, London (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chomsky, N.: Structures syntaxiques. Le seuil, Paris (1957)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Husser, R.: Foundations of Computational Linguistics. Springer, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Informatics and Telematics, National Council of ResearchCosenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations