is hard to do (why?)
DESCRIPTION
Sharing healthcare meaning. is hard to do (Why?). John Madden SNOMED/Duke University. A big, recurring mistake. … you ’ re unlikely to come up with a good language for saying it. If you can ’ t specify what sorts of things you ’ ll be wanting to say …. What do M.D. ’ s want to do/say?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
is hard to do (Why?)
John Madden
SNOMED/Duke University
Sharing healthcare meaning
A big, recurring mistake
If you can’t specify what sorts of things you’ll be wanting to say…
…you’re unlikely to come up with a good language for saying it.
What do M.D.’s want to do/say?• Store records
retrievably• Ad hoc search• Explore/mine records• Support M.D.-machine
interaction (structured reporting, templates)
• Decision support• Artificial medical
intelligence
Okay
Oy vay
We constantly and unconsciously hop heterogeneous levels of
abstraction !
“The Facts”
“Which facts belong in discharge plan?”
“Hmm, odd combination of symptoms!”
“Which facts belong in an eye exam note?”
Germ Theory of Disease
Why is this a problem?
•Specific, relatively tractable notion of semantics underlies many very successful knowledge representation formalisms• “The existence and non-existence of
atomic facts is Reality.…A proposition presents the existence and non-existence of atomic facts.”
•“Of what we cannot speak, we must remain silent.”
But what’s missing?
•Context
•Relevance
•Agendas
•Workflow embedding
•Paraconsistency
Three topologies for “semantic interoperability”
Central semantic authority
What happens?
“If you would just our controlled vocabulary (damn it), we wouldn’t have all these interoperability issues.
Spheres of Influence
•De facto interoperabiltiy
• Inferencing is tractable
•Maintenance is conceptually simple
Pro and con• Terminological
complexity scales poorly
• Inferencing is brittle
• Restricts speech
• Maintenance (in practice) incredibly laborious
Hierachical semantics
Very specific butpoorly sharable
Devoid of specificsbut very sharable
What happens?
•Centralized terminologies ‘lose weight”
•Users take on more responsibility
• “Weakest link” phenomenon
What happens?
Registries
Ontology rconciliation
Pro and con
• Unrecoverable loss of information
• Inconsistencies still break inferences• And now they
might be harder to pinpoint
• Can still reason• And maybe the
size of the fact base is smaller and more manageable
Federated semantics
• Mapping•Responsibility is finely
divided•Quality depends on peer-
to-peer collaboration• “Map-to-play”
• Few global guarantees• Need to support a
“market” in ontology fragments
What happens?
Nirvana
•Locally consistent
•Globally tolerant of inconsistency
•Finely granular in either case
At what level are we non-interoperable?
“The Facts”
“Which facts belong in discharge plan?”
“Unusual combination of symptoms!”
“Which facts belong in my exam note?”
Germ Theory of Disease
Technology fit to use case
Heavy inferencingHeavy search
Very contextual
Very non-contextual