Ingenerf J, Giere W
GSF-National Research Center for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Methods Inf Med. 1998 Nov;37(4-5):527-39.
Nowadays, most activities on controlled medical vocabularies focus on the provision of a sufficient atomic-level granularity for representing clinical data. Amongst others, clinical vocabularies should be concept oriented, compositional and should also reject "Not Elsewhere Classified". We strongly share the opinion that there is a need to deal with serious deficits of existing manually created vocabularies and with new demands for computer-based advanced processing and exchange of medical language data. However, we do not share the opinion that methodological requirements like observational and structural comparability needed for sound statistics should not be included in desiderata of controlled medical vocabularies. Statistical-oriented classifications are not developed for representing detailed clinical data but for providing purpose-dependent classes where cases of interest are assigned uniquely. Either statistical classifications are not included into the set of controlled medical vocabularies in the sense of Cimino, or his desiderata are misleading. We argue that statistical classifications should be linked to (formal) concept systems, but again this linkage does not change their different natures. With this article we continue the "classification versus nomenclature" controversy referring to Coté.
如今，大多数关于受控医学词汇的活动都集中在为表示临床数据提供足够的原子级粒度上。其中，临床词汇应以概念为导向、具有组合性，并且还应摒弃“其他未分类”。我们强烈认同有必要解决现有手动创建词汇的严重不足以及应对基于计算机的医学语言数据高级处理和交换的新需求。然而，我们不同意这样的观点，即健全统计所需的观察性和结构可比性等方法学要求不应包含在受控医学词汇的需求之中。面向统计的分类并非为表示详细的临床数据而开发，而是为提供依赖于目的的类别，在这些类别中，感兴趣的病例被唯一分配。要么从西米诺的意义上讲，统计分类不包含在受控医学词汇集合中；要么他的需求具有误导性。我们认为统计分类应与（形式）概念系统相联系，但这种联系同样不会改变它们不同的性质。通过本文，我们延续了科特所提及的“分类与命名法”之争。
