Clarkson Melissa D, Whipple Mark E
Division of Biomedical Informatics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018 Dec 5;2018:330-339. eCollection 2018.
Clinical informatics makes use of anatomical representation-particularly in the form of anatomical terms. But differences and ambiguities in naming anatomical structures and partitioning the body can complicate efforts to interlink anatomical resources and integrate clinical data. To better understand differences in representations of human anatomy, we compare five digital resources: a formal ontology, a terminology, and three 3D graphics applications. Because the graphics applications offer explicit representation of the boundaries and partitions of anatomical structures, they reveal the differences in modeling of anatomy that may not be apparent through text-based representations. The variations in these resources allow us to categorize differences in representations of anatomy and to highlight the importance of this topic in the context of clinical informatics.
临床信息学利用解剖学表示——特别是以解剖学术语的形式。但是，在命名解剖结构和划分身体方面的差异和模糊性可能会使链接解剖学资源和整合临床数据的工作变得复杂。为了更好地理解人体解剖学表示的差异，我们比较了五种数字资源：一种形式本体、一种术语表和三个三维图形应用程序。由于图形应用程序提供了解剖结构边界和分区的明确表示，它们揭示了通过基于文本的表示可能不明显的解剖学建模差异。这些资源中的变化使我们能够对解剖学表示的差异进行分类，并突出该主题在临床信息学背景下的重要性。
