Raje Satyajeet, Bodenreider Olivier
U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:925-929.
To contrast the coverage of diseases between the Disease Ontology (DO) and SNOMED CT, and to compare the hierarchical structure of the two ontologies.
We establish a reference list of mappings. We characterize unmapped concepts in DO semantically and structurally. Finally, we compare the hierarchical structure between the two ontologies.
Overall, 4478 (65%) the 6931 DO concepts are mapped to SNOMED CT. The cancer and neoplasm subtrees of DO account for many of the unmapped concepts. The most frequent differentiae in unmapped concepts include morphology (for cancers and neoplasms), specific subtypes (for rare genetic disorders), and anatomical subtypes. Unmapped concepts usually form subtrees, and less often correspond to isolated leaves or intermediary concepts.
This detailed analysis of the gaps in coverage and structural differences between DO and SNOMED CT contributes to the interoperability between these two ontologies and will guide further validation of the mapping.
对比疾病本体论(DO)和医学系统命名法临床术语(SNOMED CT)之间的疾病覆盖范围,并比较这两种本体的层次结构。
我们建立了一个映射参考列表。我们从语义和结构上对DO中未映射的概念进行特征描述。最后,我们比较这两种本体之间的层次结构。
总体而言,DO的6931个概念中有4478个(65%)映射到了SNOMED CT。DO的癌症和肿瘤子树占了许多未映射的概念。未映射概念中最常见的差异包括形态学(针对癌症和肿瘤)、特定亚型(针对罕见遗传病)和解剖学亚型。未映射的概念通常形成子树,较少对应于孤立的叶节点或中间概念。
对DO和SNOMED CT之间覆盖范围差距和结构差异的详细分析有助于这两种本体之间的互操作性,并将指导映射的进一步验证。