A Conceptual Framework for the Biomedical Domain

  • Alexa T. McCray
  • Olivier Bodenreider
Part of the Information Science and Knowledge Management book series (ISKM, volume 3)


Specialized domains often come with an extensive terminology, suitable for storing and exchanging information, but not necessarily for knowledge processing. Knowledge structures such as semantic networks, or ontologies, are required to explore the semantics of a domain. The UMLS project at the National Library of Medicine is a research effort to develop knowledge-based resources for the biomedical domain. The Metathesaurus is a large body of knowledge that defines and inter-relates 730,000 biomedical concepts, and the Semantic Network defines the semantic principles that apply to this domain. This chapter presents these two knowledge sources and illustrates through a research study how they can collaborate to further structure the domain. The limits of the approach are discussed.


Semantic Network Semantic Type Unify Medical Language System Biomedical Domain Semantic Link 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bodenreider, O., Burgun, A., Botti, G., Fieschi, M., Le Beux, P., & Kohler, F. (1998). Evaluation of the Unified Medical Language System as a medical knowledge source. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 5, 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brachman, R. J. (1979). On the epistemological status of semantic networks. In N. Findler (Ed.), Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, 3–50. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carenini, G., & Moore, J. D. (1993). Using the UMLS Semantic Network as a basis for constructing a terminological knowledge base: A preliminary report. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 725–729.Google Scholar
  4. Cimino, J. J. (1998). Auditing the Unified Medical Language System with semantic methods. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 5, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Greenhill, S., & Venkatesh, S. (1998). Noetica: A tool for semantic data modelling. Information Processing & Management, 34, 739–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gu, H. Y., Perl, Y., Geller, J., Halper, M., Liu, L. M., & Cimino, J. J. (2000). Representing the UMLS as an object-oriented database: Modeling issues and advantages. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7, 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Joubert, M., Miton, F., Fieschi, M., & Robert, J. J. (1995). A conceptual graphs modeling of UMLS components. Medinfo, 8, 90–94.Google Scholar
  8. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lehmann, F. (1992). Semantic networks. In F. Lehmann (Ed.), Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, 1–50. Tarrytown, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lindberg, D. A., Humphreys, B. L., & McCray, A. T. (1993). The Unified Medical Language System. Methods of Information in Medicine, 32, 281–291.Google Scholar
  11. McCray, A. T., & Nelson, S. J. (1995). The representation of meaning in the UMLS. Methods of Information in Medicine, 34, 193–201.Google Scholar
  12. McCray, A. T., Razi, A. M., Bangalore, A. K., Browne, A. C., & Stavri, P. Z. (1996). The UMLS Knowledge Source Server: A versatile Internet-based research tool. Proceedings of the 1996 AMIA Annual Fall Symposium, 164–168.Google Scholar
  13. McCray, A. T., Srinivasan, S., & Browne, A. C. (1994). Lexical methods for managing variation in biomedical terminologies. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 235–239.Google Scholar
  14. National Information Standards Organization (NISO). (1993). Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Thesauri (Developed by the National Information Standards Organization. Approved August 30, 1993, by the American National Standards Institute). Google Scholar
  15. Pisanelli, D. M., Gangemi, A., & Steve, G. (1998). An ontological analysis of the UMLS Methathesaurus. Proceedings of the 1998 AMIA Symposium, 810–814.Google Scholar
  16. Quillian, M. (1968). Semantic memory. In M.Minsky (Ed.), Semantic Information Processing, 227–270. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ruan, W., Burkle, T., & Dudeck, J. (2000). An object-oriented design for automated navigation of semantic networks inside a medical data dictionary. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 18, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sowa, J. F., & Borgida, A. (1991). Principles of Semantic Networks : Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Srinivasan, P. (1999). Exploring the UMLS: A rough sets based theoretical framework. Proceedings of the 1999 AMIA Symposium, 156–160.Google Scholar
  20. Volot, F., Zweigenbaum, P., Bachimont, B., Ben Said, M., Bouaud, J., Fieschi, M., & Boisvieux, J. F. (1993). Structuration and acquisition of medical knowledge. Using UMLS in the conceptual graph formalism. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 710–714.Google Scholar
  21. Woods, W. (1985). What’s in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In R. J. Brachman & H. J. Levesque (Eds.), Readings in Knowledge Representation, 218–241. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. Yu, H., Friedman, C., Rhzetsky, A., & Kra, P. (1999). Representing genomic knowledge in the UMLS semantic network. Proceedings of the 1999 AMIA Symposium, 181–185.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexa T. McCray
    • 1
  • Olivier Bodenreider
    • 1
  1. 1.National Library of MedicineBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations