Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Advances in neuroscience are underpinned by large, multicenter studies and a mass of heterogeneous datasets. When investigating the relationships between brain anatomy and brain functions under normal and pathological conditions, measurements obtained from a broad range of brain imaging techniques are correlated with the information on each subject’s neurologic states, cognitive assessments and behavioral scores derived from questionnaires and tests. The development of ontologies in neuroscience appears to be a valuable way of gathering and handling properly these heterogeneous data – particularly through the use of federated architectures. We recently proposed a multilayer ontology for sharing brain images and regions of interest in neuroimaging. Here, we report on an extension of this ontology to the representation of instruments used to assess brain and cognitive functions and behavior in humans. This extension consists of a ‘core’ ontology that accounts for the properties shared by all instruments supplemented by ‘domain’ ontologies that conceptualize standard instruments. We also specify how this core ontology has been refined to build domain ontologies dedicated to widely used instruments and how various scores used in the neurosciences are represented. Lastly, we discuss our design choices, the ontology’s limitations and planned extensions aimed at querying and reasoning across distributed data sources.
Batrancourt, B., Dojat, M., Gibaud, B., & Kassel, G. A. (2010). Core ontology of instruments used for neurological, behavioral and cognitive assessments. In The 6th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, FOIS’2010, Toronto (Ca), (pp. 185–198).
Borgo, S., & Masolo, C. (2009). Ontological Foundations of DOLCE. In S. Staab & R. Studer (Eds.), Handbook on Ontologies (2nd ed., pp. 361–382). Berlin (Ge): Springer Verlag. CrossRef
Brinkman, R. R., Courtot, M., Derom, D., Fostel, J. M., He, Y., Lord, P., et al. (2010). Modeling biomedical experimental processes with OBI. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 1(Suppl 1:S7), 1–11.
Fortier, J. Y., & Kassel, G. (2004). Managing knowledge at the information level: an ontological approach. In ECAI’2004 workshop on knowledge management and organizational memories, Barcelona (Sp), (pp. 39–45)
Galton, A., & Mizoguchi, R. (2009). The water falls but the waterfall does not fall: new perspectives on objects, processes and events. Applied Ontology, 4(2), 71–107.
Gangemi, A., & Borgo, S. (2004). Workshop on Core Ontologies in Ontology Engineering. In EKAW’04 Northamptonshire (UK), (Vol. 118, pp. 118)
Gibaud, B., Kassel, G., Dojat, M., Batrancourt, B., Michel, F., Gaignard, A., et al. (2011). NeuroLOG: sharing neuroimaging data using an ontology-based federated approach. AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2011, 472–480.
Hilpinen, R. (2004). Artifact. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Kassel, G. (2010). A formal ontology of artefacts. Applied Ontology, 5(3–4), 223–246.
Kuhn, W. A. (2009). Functional Ontology of Observation and Measurement. In J. e. al. (Ed.), Proc. of the Third International Conference on GeoSpatial Semantics (GeoS 2009), (Vol. LNCS 5892, pp. 26–43): Springer.
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., Loring, D. W., Hannay, H. J., & Fischer, J. S. (2004). Neuropsychological Assessment: Oxford University Press.
Masolo, C. (2010). Founding properties on measurement. In A. M. Galton, R. (Ed.), Proc. of the Sixth International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2010), (pp. 89–102): IOS Press.
Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A., & Schneider, L. (2003). The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies and the DOLCE ontology. WonderWeb Deliverable D18, Final Report, vr. 1.0 (Vol.)
Masolo, C., Vieu, L., Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Ferrario, R., Gangemi, A., et al. (2004). Social roles and their descriptions. In D. Dubois, C. Welty, & M.-A. Williams (Eds.), Ninth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Whistler (Ca), (pp. 267–277).
Morris, J. (1983). The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology, 43(11), 2412–2414. CrossRef
Pacherie, E. (2000). The content of intentions. Mind and Language, 15(4), 400–432. CrossRef
Pease, A., & Niles, I. (2002). Practical Semiotics: A Formal Theory. In International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering (IKE’02), Las Vegas, Nevada.
Probst, F. (2008). Observations, measurements and semantic reference spaces. Applied Ontology, 3(1:2), 63–89.
Schneider, L., Brochhausen, M., & Koepsell, D. (2011). On Some Best Practices in Large-Scale Ontology Development: The Chronius Ontology Suite as a Case Study. In P. E. D. Vermaas, V. (Ed.), Proc. of the 5th workshop on Formal Ontologies Meet Industry (FOMI 2011), (pp. 28–38): IOS Press.
Temal, L., Lando, P., Gibaud, B., Dojat, M., Kassel, G., & Lapujade, A. (2006). OntoNeuroBase: a multi-layered application ontology in neuroimaging. Paper presented at the Proc. of the 2nd workshop on Formal Ontologies Meet Industry (FOMI 2006), Trento (It).
Trypuz, R. (2008). Formal ontology of action: A unifying approach. Lublin (Pl): Wydawnictwo Kul.
Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore (US): Williams & Witkins. CrossRef
White, T., & Hauan, M. (2002). Extending the LOINC conceptual schema to support standardized assessment instruments. Journal of American Informatics Association, 9, 586–599. CrossRef
- A Multilayer Ontology of Instruments for Neurological, Behavioral and Cognitive Assessments
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA