Three Types of IS-A Statement in Diagnostic Classifications: Three Types of Knowledge Needed for Development and Maintenance

Abstract

Update mechanisms for diagnostic classifications should capture changes in medical knowledge but also allow for comparability across versions. This paper provides a basis for such a mechanism by describing types of IS-A statement and types of knowledge used in the construction of diagnostic classifications. Three types of IS-A statement are used: ‘A is by definition a 8’, ‘A is probably a 8’ and ‘A is in theory necessarily a 8’. Each relates to a different type of knowedge: knowledge of linguistic conventions, of probabilities, and of empirical theories and their status, respectively. Consequently, the development and maintenance of diagnostic classifications requires a collaboration of medical terminologists and medical scientists. The role of the latter is especially important during updating. Updating is necessitated by changing probabilities and by the introduction or changing status of empirical theories. The linguistic notion of hyponymy oversimplifies the issue.

Keywords

Classificaton - Terminology - Semantics - Logic - Knowledge Representation

• REFERENCES

• 1 Brachman RJ. What is-a is and isn't: an analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. IEEE Computer 1983; 16 (10) 30-6.
• 2 King LS. Boissier de Sauvages and the 18th century nosology. Bull Hist Med 1966; 40: 43-51.
• 3 Cimino JJ. Formal descriptions and adaptive mechanisms for changes in controlled medical vocabularies. Meth Inform Med 1996; 35: 202-10.
• 4 Tuttle MS, Nelson SJ. A poor precendent [editorial commentary]. Meth Inform Med 1996; 35: 211-7.
• 5 World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems – 10th revision. Volume 1. Geneva: WHO; 1992
• 6 Lacey AR. A dictionary of philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1986
• 7 Brachman RJ, Fikes RE, Levesque HJ. KRYPTON: A functional aproach to knowledge representation. In: Brachman RJ, Levesque HJ. eds. Readings in knowlegde representation. California: Morgan Kaufmann,; 1985: 413-29.
• 8 Kiuchi T, Ohashi Y, Sato H, Kaihara S. Methodology for the construction of a disease nomenclature and classification system for clinical use. Meth Inform Med 1995; 34: 511-7.
• 9 Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1988; 31: 315-24.
• 10 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3rd ed. Revised. Washington: APA; 1987
• 11 Kripke S. Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell; 1972
• 12 Schwartz SP. ed. Naming, necessity and natural kinds. Ithaca: Cornali University Press; 1977
• 13 Lantos PL. From slow virus to prion: a review of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Histopathology 1992; 20 (1) 1-11.
• 14 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed. Washington: APA; 1994
• 15 Dorland's illustrated medical dictionary. 28th ed. Philadelphia: Sauders; 1994
• 16 McCray AT, Nelson SJ. The representation of meaning in the UMLS. Meth Inform Med 1995; 34: 193-201.
• 17 Coté RA. ed. Systematized nomenclature of medicine. 2nd ed. Skokie (IL): College of American Pathologists; 1979
• 18 Rothwell DJ. SNOMED-based knowledge representation. Meth Inform Med 1995; 34: 209-13.
• 19 Zanstra PE, van der Haring EJ, Flier F, Rogers JE, Solomon WD. Using the GRAIL language for classification management. In: Pappas C, Maglaveras N, Scherrer JR. eds. Medical Informatics Europe '97. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1997: 441-5.