Using clinical reasoning ontologies to make smarter clinical decision support systems: a systematic review and data synthesis

Pavithra I. Dissanayake, Tiago K. Colicchio, J. Cimino
{"title":"Using clinical reasoning ontologies to make smarter clinical decision support systems: a systematic review and data synthesis","authors":"Pavithra I. Dissanayake, Tiago K. Colicchio, J. Cimino","doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocz169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective The study sought to describe the literature describing clinical reasoning ontology (CRO)–based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and identify and classify the medical knowledge and reasoning concepts and their properties within these ontologies to guide future research. Methods MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched through January 30, 2019, for studies describing CRO-based CDSSs. Articles that explored the development or application of CROs or terminology were selected. Eligible articles were assessed for quality features of both CDSSs and CROs to determine the current practices. We then compiled concepts and properties used within the articles. Results We included 38 CRO-based CDSSs for the analysis. Diversity of the purpose and scope of their ontologies was seen, with a variety of knowledge sources were used for ontology development. We found 126 unique medical knowledge concepts, 38 unique reasoning concepts, and 240 unique properties (137 relationships and 103 attributes). Although there is a great diversity among the terms used across CROs, there is a significant overlap based on their descriptions. Only 5 studies described high quality assessment. Conclusion We identified current practices used in CRO development and provided lists of medical knowledge concepts, reasoning concepts, and properties (relationships and attributes) used by CRO-based CDSSs. CRO developers reason that the inclusion of concepts used by clinicians’ during medical decision making has the potential to improve CDSS performance. However, at present, few CROs have been used for CDSSs, and high-quality studies describing CROs are sparse. Further research is required in developing high-quality CDSSs based on CROs.","PeriodicalId":236137,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"75","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 75

Abstract

Abstract Objective The study sought to describe the literature describing clinical reasoning ontology (CRO)–based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and identify and classify the medical knowledge and reasoning concepts and their properties within these ontologies to guide future research. Methods MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched through January 30, 2019, for studies describing CRO-based CDSSs. Articles that explored the development or application of CROs or terminology were selected. Eligible articles were assessed for quality features of both CDSSs and CROs to determine the current practices. We then compiled concepts and properties used within the articles. Results We included 38 CRO-based CDSSs for the analysis. Diversity of the purpose and scope of their ontologies was seen, with a variety of knowledge sources were used for ontology development. We found 126 unique medical knowledge concepts, 38 unique reasoning concepts, and 240 unique properties (137 relationships and 103 attributes). Although there is a great diversity among the terms used across CROs, there is a significant overlap based on their descriptions. Only 5 studies described high quality assessment. Conclusion We identified current practices used in CRO development and provided lists of medical knowledge concepts, reasoning concepts, and properties (relationships and attributes) used by CRO-based CDSSs. CRO developers reason that the inclusion of concepts used by clinicians’ during medical decision making has the potential to improve CDSS performance. However, at present, few CROs have been used for CDSSs, and high-quality studies describing CROs are sparse. Further research is required in developing high-quality CDSSs based on CROs.
使用临床推理本体,使更智能的临床决策支持系统:系统审查和数据综合
摘要目的对临床推理本体(clinical reasoning ontology, CRO)为基础的临床决策支持系统(clinical decision support systems, cdss)进行文献描述,并对这些本体中的医学知识、推理概念及其属性进行识别和分类,以指导未来的研究。方法检索截至2019年1月30日的MEDLINE、Scopus和Google Scholar,检索描述基于cro的cdss的研究。选择了探讨cro或术语的发展或应用的文章。对符合条件的文章进行cdss和cro的质量特征评估,以确定当前的做法。然后编译文章中使用的概念和属性。结果我们纳入了38个基于cro的cdss进行分析。它们的本体目的和范围各不相同,本体开发使用的知识来源也多种多样。我们发现了126个独特的医学知识概念,38个独特的推理概念和240个独特的属性(137个关系和103个属性)。尽管在cro中使用的术语有很大的差异,但根据它们的描述,有很大的重叠。只有5项研究描述了高质量的评估。结论:我们确定了CRO开发中使用的当前实践,并提供了基于CRO的cdss使用的医学知识概念、推理概念和属性(关系和属性)列表。CRO开发人员认为,临床医生在医疗决策过程中使用的概念有可能改善CDSS的性能。然而,目前用于cdss的cro很少,描述cro的高质量研究也很少。开发基于cro的高质量cdss需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信