Advertisement

Investigating Oncological Databases Using Conceptual Landscapes

  • Christian SăcăreaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8577)

Abstract

This paper presents an application of the conceptual landscapes paradigm in the representation of the knowledge content of oncological databases. Even if the method is not new, to the best of our knowledge it is the first time when applied in the study of oncological data. Moreover, building knowledge management systems for medical databases might be of interest for large scale health-care industrial applications of Formal Concept Analysis. Conceptual Landscapes is a paradigm of Knowledge Representation which is grounded on Conceptual Knowledge Processing. Using the mathematical apparatus of Formal Concept Analysis and the knowledge management suite ToscanaJ, as well as a triadic extension called Toscana2Trias, we present several issues related to the study of adverse drug reactions in oncology using conceptual landscapes, as well as building a knowledge management system of a cancer registry database according to the principles of Conceptual Knowledge Processing.

Keywords

Adverse Reaction Adverse Drug Reaction Hair Loss Formal Concept Analysis Knowledge Management System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Estacio-Moreno, A., Toussaint, Y., Bousquet, C.: Mining for adverse drug events with formal concept analysis. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 136, 8038 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lehmann, F., Wille, R.: A Triadic Approach to Formal Concept Analysis. In: Ellis, G., Levinson, R., Rich, W., Sowa, J.F. (eds.) Conceptual Structures: Applications, Implementation and Theory 1995. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 954, pp. 32–43. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hotho, A., et al.: Folkrank: A ranking algorithm for folksonomies. In: Sure, Y., Domingo, J. (eds.) Proc. FGIR, pp. 2–5 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glodeanu, C.V.: Tri-ordinal Factor Analysis. In: Cellier, P., Distel, F., Ganter, B. (eds.) ICFCA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7880, pp. 125–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belohlavek, R., Glodeanu, C., Vychodil, V.: Optimal factorization of three-way binary data using triadic concepts. Order 30(2), 437–454 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jaschke, R., Hotho, A., Schmitz, C., Ganter, B., Stumme, G.: TRIAS–An Algorithm for Mining Iceberg Tri-Lattices. In: Sixth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2006), pp. 907–911 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wille, R.: Methods of Conceptual Knowledge Processing. In: Missaoui, R., Schmidt, J. (eds.) ICFCA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3874, pp. 1–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Becker, P., Hereth, J., Stumme, G.: ToscanaJ: An Open Source Tool for Qualitative Data Analysis. In: Proc. Workshop FCAKDD of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2002 (July 2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceBabeş-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations