| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Research Paper |
Affiliations of the authors: The Digital Anatomist Program, Departments of Biological Structure and Computer Science, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Correspondence and reprints: Cornelius Rosse, Department of Biological Structure, Box 357420, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail: rosse{at}u.washington.edu
Abstract Objective: Conceptualization of the physical objects and spaces that constitute the human body at the macroscopic level of organization, specified as a machine-parseable ontology that, in its human-readable form, is comprehensible to both expert and novice users of anatomical information.
Design: Conceived as an anatomical enhancement of the UMLS Semantic Network and Metathesaurus, the anatomical ontology was formulated by specifying defining attributes and differentia for classes and subclasses of physical anatomical entities based on their partitive and spatial relationships. The validity of the classification was assessed by instantiating the ontology for the thorax. Several transitive relationships were used for symbolically modeling aspects of the physical organization of the thorax.
Results: By declaring Organ as the macroscopic organizational unit of the body, and defining the entities that constitute organs and higher level entities constituted by organs, all anatomical entities could be assigned to one of three top level classes (Anatomical structure, Anatomical spatial entity and Body substance). The ontology accommodates both the systemic and regional (topographical) views of anatomy, as well as diverse clinical naming conventions of anatomical entities.
Conclusions: The ontology formulated for the thorax is extendible to microscopic and cellular levels, as well as to other body parts, in that its classes subsume essentially all anatomical entities that constitute the body. Explicit definitions of these entities and their relationships provide the first requirement for standards in anatomical concept representation. Conceived from an anatomical viewpoint, the ontology can be generalized and mapped to other biomedical domains and problem solving tasks that require anatomical knowledge.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  D. L. Rubin, N. H. Shah, and N. F. Noy Biomedical ontologies: a functional perspective Brief Bioinform, January 1, 2008; 9(1): 75 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Bittner and L. J. Goldberg The qualitative and time-dependent character of spatial relations in biomedical ontologies Bioinformatics, July 1, 2007; 23(13): 1674 - 1682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Aitken Formalizing concepts of species, sex and developmental stage in anatomical ontologies Bioinformatics, June 1, 2005; 21(11): 2773 - 2779. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. G. Shapiro, E. Chung, L. T. Detwiler, J. L.V. Mejino Jr., A. V. Agoncillo, J. F. Brinkley, and C. Rosse Processes and Problems in the Formative Evaluation of an Interface to the Foundational Model of Anatomy Knowledge Base J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2005; 12(1): 35 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Jakobovits, C. Rosse, and J. F. Brinkley WIRM An Open Source Toolkit for Building Biomedical Web Applications J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., November 1, 2002; 9(6): 557 - 570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. T. McCray and R. A. Miller Making the Conceptual Connections: The UMLS after a Decade of Research and Development J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 1998; 5(1): 129 - 130. [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
