A Description Logics Approach to Clinical

Guidelines and Protocols

Stefan SchulzDepartment of Med. InformaticsFreiburg University Hospital Germany

Udo HahnText Knowledge Engineering Lab Freiburg University, Germany

•

Formalization of CGP Up until now:

CGPs are treated as plans: actions, states, transition functions. Methodologies from the AI Planning & OR Scheduling community

New Approach: Formal Ontology methodology can be used to represent (at least, selected) aspects of CGPs in order to support consistency, fusion, and modulariziation of CGPs

Our Proposal

Ontological analysis of CGPs Introduce basic categories Classification of domain entities Axiomatize foundational relations Study interrelations between domain entities

Choose a logic framework for the formaliza-tion of the ontology Representation: Description Logics (FOL

subset) Reasoning: Powerful Taxonomic Classifiers

(e.g., FaCT, RACER)

Fundamental Distinctions

Physical Objects, Substances, Organisms, Body Parts

Continuants vs. OccurrentsProcesses, Events, Actions, Courses of Diseases, TreatmentEpisodes

Individuals vs. Classes

my left Hand, Paul’s Dia-betes, Appendectomy of Patient #230997

Hand, Diabetes, Appendectomy

How do CGPs fit into this framework ?

Guidelines and Occurrents

Proposal: A Guideline G can be mapped to a set of classes of occurrents:E = {E1, E2,…, En}

The elements of E correspond to all allowed paths through a Guideline G

Each element of E represents - as a concept-ual abstraction – a class of individual clinical occurrents

Simplified Chronic

Cough Guideline

Smoking [SM]

Cessation of Smoking[CS]

NoCough [NC]

NonSmoking [NS]

Cough[CO]

ChestX-Ray [CX]

ChronicCough [CC]

Phys.Exam [PE]

Anamnesis [AN]

E1 = (CC, AN, PE, SM, CS, NC)E2 = (CC, AN, PE, SM, CS, CO, CX)E3 = (CC, AN, PE, NS, CX)E4 = (CC, PE, AN, SM, CS, NC)E5 = (CC, PE, AN, SM, CS, CO, CX)E6 = (CC, PE, AN, NS, CX)

Temporal sequence of clinical occurrents

Smoking [SM]

Cessation of Smoking[CS]

NoCough [NC]

NonSmoking [NS]

Cough[CO]

ChestX-Ray [CX]

ChronicCough [CC]

Phys.Exam [PE]

Anamnesis [AN]

E1 = (CC, AN, PE, SM, CS, NC)E2 = (CC, AN, PE, SM, CS, CO, CX)E3 = (CC, AN, PE, NS, CX)E4 = (CC, PE, AN, SM, CS, NC)E5 = (CC, PE, AN, SM, CS, CO, CX)E6 = (CC, PE, AN, NS, CX)

Temporal sequence of clinical occurrents

Clinicaloccurrence

Simplified Chronic

Cough Guideline

Smoking [SM]

Cessation of Smoking[CS]

NoCough [NC]

NonSmoking [NS]

Cough[CO]

ChestX-Ray [CX]

ChronicCough [CC]

Phys.Exam [PE]

Anamnesis [AN]

E1 = (CC, AN, PE, SM, CS, NC)E2 = (CC, AN, PE, SM, CS, CO, CX)E3 = (CC, AN, PE, NS, CX)E4 = (CC, PE, AN, SM, CS, NC)E5 = (CC, PE, AN, SM, CS, CO, CX)E6 = (CC, PE, AN, NS, CX)

Temporal sequence of clinical occurences

Simplified Chronic

Cough Guideline

Basic Relations

Smoking [SM]

Cessation of Smoking[CS]

NoCough [NC]

NonSmoking [NS]

Cough[CO]

ChestX-Ray [CX]

ChronicCough [CC]

Phys.Exam [PE]

Anamnesis [AN]

Taxonomic Order (is-a)relates classes of specific occurrences to classes of general ones:is-a(CX, XR) def x: CX(x) XR(x)

Cough [CO]

DrugAbuse [DA]

X-Ray [XR]

Basic Relations

Smoking [SM]

Cessation of Smoking[CS]

NoCough [NC]

NonSmoking [NS]

Cough[CO]

ChestX-Ray [CX]

ChronicCough [CC]

Phys.Exam [PE]

Anamnesis [AN]

Cough [CO]

DrugAbuse [DA]

X-Ray [XR]

Taxonomic Order (is-a)relates classes of specific occurrences to classes of general ones:is-a(CX, XR) def x: CX(x) XR(x)

Mereologic Order (has-part) relates classes of occurrences toclasses of sub-occurrencesx: PE(x) y: HA(y) has-part(x,y)

Heart Auscul tation [HA]

Social Anamnesis [AN]

Basic Relations

Smoking [SM]

Cessation of Smoking[CS]

NoCough [NC]

Cough[CO]

ChestX-Ray [CX]

ChronicCough [CC]

Phys.Exam [PE]

Anamnesis [AN]

Cough [CO]

DrugAbuse [DA]

X-Ray [XR]

Taxonomic Order (is-a)relates classes of specific occurrences to classes of general ones:is-a(CX, XR) def x: CX(x) XR(x)

Mereologic Order (has-part) relates classes of occurrences classes of sub-occurrencesx: PE(x) y: HA(y) has-part(x,y)Temporal Order (follows / precedes) relates classes of occurrences in terms of temporal succession

Heart Auscul tation [HA]

Social Anamnesis [AN]

NonSmoking [NS]

Modelling PatternS

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

K L occurrent conceptsT

Modelling Pattern

UKU

LU

SK L

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

occurrent conceptsdefinition of U

T

Modelling Pattern

UKU

LU

EUE

SE

SK L

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

occurrent conceptsdefinition of Udefinition of E

T

KU

LU

Modelling Pattern

U

KU

LU

EUE

SE

SK L

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

occurrent conceptsdefinition of Udefinition of EUE inherits properties of U

T

KU

LU

Modelling Pattern

U

KU

LU

EUE

SE

SK L

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

occurrent conceptsdefinition of Udefinition of EUE inherits properties of Udefinition of F as a subconcept of E

T

F

KU

LU

UE

SE

KU

LU

Modelling Pattern

U

KU

LU

E

UE

SE

SK L

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

occurrent conceptsdefinition of Udefinition of EUE inherits properties of Udefinition of F as a subconcept of EF inherits properties of E

T

F

KU

LU

UE

SE

KU

LU

Modelling Pattern

U

KU

LU

E

UE

SE

SK L

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

occurrent conceptsdefinition of Udefinition of EUE inherits properties of Udefinition of F as a subconcept of EF inherits properties of EF, additionally, has a T whichoccurs between U and S

T

F

TE

KU

LU

U

E

SK L T

KU

LU

UE

SE

Modelling Pattern

KU

LU

UE

SE

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

occurrent conceptsdefinition of Udefinition of EUE inherits properties of Udefinition of F as a subconcept of EF inherits properties of EF, additionally, has a T whichoccurs between U and Sinferences / constraints(formalization see paper)

F

TE

KU

LU

U

E

SK L T

KU

LU

UE

SE

Modelling Pattern

KU

LU

UE

SE

has-part precedes

is-a

transitive relations

occurrent conceptsdefinition of Udefinition of EUE inherits properties of Udefinition of F as a subconcept of EF inherits properties of EF, additionally, has a T whichoccurs between U and Sinferences / constraints(formalization see paper)

F

TE

Benefits Description Logics implementations allow

taxonomic classification and instance recognition. Checking of logical integrity in the management,

cooperative development and fusion of CGPs Detecting redundancies and inconsistencies, e.g.,

conflicting orders when applying several CGPs simultaneously to one clinical case

Auditing of concrete instances (cases) from the Electronic Patient Record in terms of cross-checking against applicable CGPs (quality assurance, epicritic assessment)

Discussion

First sketch of ongoing research Based on Description Logics Up until now, not all (temporal)

inferencing capabilities are supported Needs to be validated under real

conditions Recommended for further investigation

Tool: OilED Knowledge editor (oiled.man.ac.uk) with built-in FaCT classifier

Theory: Baader et al (eds.) The Description Logics Handbook