Cargando…

Diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis

BACKGROUND: Disease and diagnosis have been the subject of much ontological inquiry. However, the insights gained therein have not yet been well enough applied to the study, management, and improvement of data quality in electronic health records (EHR) and administrative systems. Data in these syste...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hogan, William R., Ceusters, Werner
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025551/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13326-016-0098-5
_version_ 1782453974517940224
author Hogan, William R.
Ceusters, Werner
author_facet Hogan, William R.
Ceusters, Werner
author_sort Hogan, William R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Disease and diagnosis have been the subject of much ontological inquiry. However, the insights gained therein have not yet been well enough applied to the study, management, and improvement of data quality in electronic health records (EHR) and administrative systems. Data in these systems suffer from workarounds clinicians are forced to apply due to limitations in the current state-of-the art in system design which ignore the various types of entities that diagnoses as information content entities can be and are about. This leads to difficulties in distinguishing amongst diagnostic assertions misdiagnosis from correct diagnosis, and the former from coincidentally correct statements about disease. METHODS: We applied recent advances in the ontological understanding of the aboutness relation to the problem of diagnosis and disease as defined by the Ontology for General Medical Science. We created six scenarios that we analyzed using the method of Referent Tracking to identify all the entities and their relationships which must be present for each scenario to hold true. We discovered deficiencies in existing ontological definitions and proposed revisions of them to account for the improved understanding that resulted from our analysis. RESULTS: Our key result is that a diagnosis is an information content entity (ICE) whose concretization(s) are typically about a configuration in which there exists a disease that inheres in an organism and instantiates a certain type (e.g., hypertension). Misdiagnoses are ICEs whose concretizations succeed in aboutness on the level of reference for individual entities and types (the organism and the disease), but fail in aboutness on the level of compound expression (i.e., there is no configuration that corresponds in total with what is asserted). Provenance of diagnoses as concretizations is critical to distinguishing them from lucky guesses, hearsay, and justified layperson belief. CONCLUSIONS: Recent improvements in our understanding of aboutness significantly improved our understanding of the ontology of diagnosis and related information content entities, which in turn opens new perspectives for the implementation of data capture methods in EHR and other systems to allow diagnostic assertions to be captured with less ambiguity. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13326-016-0098-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5025551
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50255512016-09-20 Diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis Hogan, William R. Ceusters, Werner J Biomed Semantics Research BACKGROUND: Disease and diagnosis have been the subject of much ontological inquiry. However, the insights gained therein have not yet been well enough applied to the study, management, and improvement of data quality in electronic health records (EHR) and administrative systems. Data in these systems suffer from workarounds clinicians are forced to apply due to limitations in the current state-of-the art in system design which ignore the various types of entities that diagnoses as information content entities can be and are about. This leads to difficulties in distinguishing amongst diagnostic assertions misdiagnosis from correct diagnosis, and the former from coincidentally correct statements about disease. METHODS: We applied recent advances in the ontological understanding of the aboutness relation to the problem of diagnosis and disease as defined by the Ontology for General Medical Science. We created six scenarios that we analyzed using the method of Referent Tracking to identify all the entities and their relationships which must be present for each scenario to hold true. We discovered deficiencies in existing ontological definitions and proposed revisions of them to account for the improved understanding that resulted from our analysis. RESULTS: Our key result is that a diagnosis is an information content entity (ICE) whose concretization(s) are typically about a configuration in which there exists a disease that inheres in an organism and instantiates a certain type (e.g., hypertension). Misdiagnoses are ICEs whose concretizations succeed in aboutness on the level of reference for individual entities and types (the organism and the disease), but fail in aboutness on the level of compound expression (i.e., there is no configuration that corresponds in total with what is asserted). Provenance of diagnoses as concretizations is critical to distinguishing them from lucky guesses, hearsay, and justified layperson belief. CONCLUSIONS: Recent improvements in our understanding of aboutness significantly improved our understanding of the ontology of diagnosis and related information content entities, which in turn opens new perspectives for the implementation of data capture methods in EHR and other systems to allow diagnostic assertions to be captured with less ambiguity. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13326-016-0098-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5025551/ /pubmed/27633888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13326-016-0098-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Hogan, William R.
Ceusters, Werner
Diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis
title Diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis
title_full Diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis
title_fullStr Diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis
title_full_unstemmed Diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis
title_short Diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis
title_sort diagnosis, misdiagnosis, lucky guess, hearsay, and more: an ontological analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025551/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13326-016-0098-5
work_keys_str_mv AT hoganwilliamr diagnosismisdiagnosisluckyguesshearsayandmoreanontologicalanalysis
AT ceusterswerner diagnosismisdiagnosisluckyguesshearsayandmoreanontologicalanalysis