Semantic Definition of Disorders in Version 3 of the Read Codes

Abstract

The disorder chapter of Version 3 of the Read codes is a rich source of clinically derived terminology. The file structure has been designed to meet a clinical need to support both enumerated and compositional taxonomy. This requirement coupled with the maintenance of multiple classification necessitates a mechanism to identify consistent hierarchical placement and equivalence between concepts. The early work on the semantic definition of the disorder chapter, to support these requirements, is outlined and the attributes that have been found to be important are presented. We also describe different categories of completeness of definition that have been identified, and the scope of those that are likely to remain incompletely characterised.

Keywords

Controlled Medical Vocabulary - Knowledge Representation - Disease - Medical Record Coding - Taxonomy

• REFERENCES

• 1 Severs MP. The Clinical Terms Project. Bulletin of Royal College of Physicians (London) 1993; 27 (2) 9-10.
• 2 NHS Centre for Coding and Classification. Read Codes File Structure Version 3.1 – The Qualifier Extensions. Technical Report. Loughborough: NHS CCC; 1994
• 3 O'Neil MJ, Payne C, Read JD. Read Codes Version 3: A User Led Terminology. Meth Inform Med 1995; 34: 187-92.
• 4 WHO: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. 10th Revision. Geneva: WHO; 1992
• 5 Price C, O'Neil M, Bentley T, Brown PJB. Exploring the Ontology of Surgical Procedures in the Read Thesaurus. Meth Inform Med 1988; 37: 420-5.
• 6 WHO: International Nomenclature of Diseases. Metabolic, Nutritional, and Endocrine Disorders. Geneva: WHO; 1991
• 7 McKusick VA. Mendelian Inheritance in Man. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press 1990; 1414-9.
• 8 Bentley TE, Price C, Brown PJB. Structural and lexical features of successive versions of the Read Codes. In Teasdale S (Ed). Pro of the Annual Conference of the primary Health Care Specialist Group, t Worcester: PHCSG, 1996; 91-103.
• 9 WHO: International Classification of DisCeases 9th Revision. Geneva: WHO; 1975
• 10 Lindberg DAB, Humphreys BL, McCray At. The Unified Medical Language System. Meth Inform Med 1993; 32: 281-91.
• 11 Rothwell DJ. SNOMED-based knowledge representation. Meth Inform Med 1995; 34: 209-1312.
• 12 Rector AL, Nowlan WA, Glowjitski AJ. Goals for concept representation in the fcALEN project. In: Safran C. (Ed). Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New York: McGraw Hill; 1993: 414-8.
• 13 Rector AL, Glowinski AJ, Nowlan WA, Rosso-Mori A. Medical concept models and medical records: An Approach based on GALEN and PEN&PAD. J Am Med Inform Assn 1995; 2: 19-35.
• 14 Cöté RA, Rothwell DJ, Palotay JL, Beckclt RS, Brochu L. The Systematized Nomenclature of Human and Veterinary Medicine – SNOMED International. College of American Pathologists; 1993
• 15 Price C, Brown PJB. Matrix Mapping: A Simple Graphical Representation of Hierarchy Structures in Clinical Vocabularies. In Cimino JJ. (Ed) Proceedings of the 1996 AMIA Annual Fall Symposium. Philadelphia: Hanlcy & Beifus; 1996: 854.
• 16 Cimino JJ, Hripcsak G, Johnson SB. Clayton PD. Designing an Introspective, Multipurpose, Controlled Medical Vocabulary. In: Kingsland LC. (Ed) Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New York: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1989: 513-817.
• 17 Evans DA, Cimino JJ, Hersch WR, Huff SM, Bell DS. Towards a medical concept representation language. J Am Med Inform Assn 1994; 1: 207-17.