Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Hua Min

Publications and source records attributed to Hua Min.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Auditing as part of the terminology design life cycle.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test an auditing methodology for detecting errors in medical terminologies satisfying systematic inheritance. This methodology is based on various abstraction taxonomies that provide high-level views of a terminology and highlight potentially erroneous concepts. DESIGN: Our auditing methodology is based on dividing concepts of a terminology into smaller, more manageable units. First, we divide the terminology's concepts into areas according to their relationships/roles. Then each multi-rooted area is further divided into partial-areas (p-areas) that are singly-rooted. Each p-area contains a set of structurally and semantically uniform concepts. Two kinds of abstraction networks, called the area taxonomy and p-area taxonomy, are derived. These taxonomies form the basis for the auditing approach. Taxonomies tend to highlight potentially erroneous concepts in areas and p-areas. Human reviewers can focus their auditing efforts on the limited number of problematic concepts following two hypotheses on the probable concentration of errors. RESULTS: A sample of the area taxonomy and p-area taxonomy for the Biological Process (BP) hierarchy of the National Cancer Institute Thesaurus (NCIT) was derived from the application of our methodology to its concepts. These views led to the detection of a number of different kinds of errors that are reported, and to confirmation of the hypotheses on error concentration in this hierarchy. CONCLUSION: Our auditing methodology based on area and p-area taxonomies is an efficient tool for detecting errors in terminologies satisfying systematic inheritance of roles, and thus facilitates their maintenance. This methodology concentrates a domain expert's manual review on portions of the concepts with a high likelihood of errors.

Biology↗

Auditing concept categorizations in the UMLS.

The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) integrates about 880,000 concepts from 100 biomedical terminologies. Each concept is categorized to at least one semantic type of the Semantic Network. During the integration, it is unavoidable that some categorization errors and inconsistencies will be introduced. In this paper, we present an auditing technique to find such errors and inconsistencies. Our technique is based on an expert reviewing the pure intersections of meta-semantic types of a metaschema, a compact abstract view of the UMLS Semantic Network. We use a divide and conquer approach, handling differently small pure intersections and medium to large pure intersections. By using this approach, we limit the number of concepts reviewed, for which we expect a high percentage of errors. We reviewed all concepts in 657 pure intersections containing one to 10 concepts. Various kinds of errors are identified and the analysis of the results are presented in the paper. Also, we checked the pure intersections containing more than 10 concepts for their semantic soundness, where the semantically suspicious pure intersections are presented in the paper and their concepts are reviewed.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

Using the metaschema to audit UMLS classification errors.

The Unified Medical Language System integrates about 800,000 concepts from 99 biomedical terminologies. Each concept is assigned to at least one semantic type of the Semantic Network. During the integration, it is unavoidable that some classification errors and inconsistencies will be introduced. In this paper, we present an auditing technique to find such errors and inconsistencies. Our technique is based on an expert reviewing the pure intersections of meta-semantic types of the metaschema, a compact abstract view of the Semantic Network. Results regarding the pure intersections are reported. The analysis results for pure intersections with 1 to 6 concepts are presented. Various kinds of errors are identified.

Semantics↗