Generating SNOMED CT Subsets from Clinical Glossaries: An Exploration Using Clinical Guidelines

  • Carlos Rodríguez-Solano
  • Jesús Cáceres
  • Miguel-Ángel Sicilia
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 221)


The large SNOMED CT (SCT) terminology has gained adoption in the last years. However, its practical application for coding clinical information is hampered by its complexity and size. The mechanism of subsets allows for creating clusters of SNOMED CT terms that cover a particular application or clinical domain. These subsets are usually defined following some sort of consensual expert-driven process that is effort-intensive. The automated generation of subsets from clinical document corpora have been proposed elsewhere, but they still require a collection of documents that is representative for the targeted domain. This paper describes an experiment in using clinical guidelines’ glossaries as a seed terminology for automatically generating subsets by traversing SNOMED relationships. Quantitative analysis reveals that traversing patterns need to be limited, and expert assessments point out that the approach may be viable at least for bootstrapping the process of elaborating the subsets.


SNOMED CT subsets clinical guidelines glossaries 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation,
  2. 2.
    Cuenca Grau B., Horrocks I., Kazakov Y., Sattler U.: Extracting modules from ontologies: Theory and practice. Technical report, University of Manchester (2007),
  3. 3.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Just the Right Amount: Extracting modules from ontologies. In (IW3C2), WWW 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada (May 8-12, 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noy, N., Musen, M.: The PROMPT suite: Interactive tools for ontology mapping and merging. Int. Journal of Human- Computer Studies 6(59) (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seidenberg, J., Rector, A.: Web ontology segmentation: Analysis, classification and use. In: Proc. WWW 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rector, A., Rogers, J.: Ontological issues in using a description logic to represent medical concepts: Experience from GALEN. In: Proc. of IMIA WG6 Workshop (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Specifying ontology views by traversal. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 713–725. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. About clinical guidelines,
  9. 9.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: A logical framework for modularity of ontologies. In: Proc. IJCAI 2007, pp. 298–304 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodenreider, O., Barry Smith, B., Anand Kumar, A., Anita Burgun, A.: Investigating Subsumption in SNOMED CT: An Exploration into Large Description Logic_Based Biomedical Terminologies. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 39, 183–195, PMC2442845 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cimino, J.J.: Desiderata for controlled medical vocabularies in the twenty-first century. Methods Inf. Med. 37, 394–403 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Rodríguez-Solano
    • 1
  • Jesús Cáceres
    • 1
  • Miguel-Ángel Sicilia
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Engineering Research Unit, Computer Science Dept.University of AlcaláAlcalá de Henares (Madrid)Spain

Personalised recommendations