Skip to main content
Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium logoLink to Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium
. 2002:612–616.

Auditing the UMLS for redundant classifications.

Yi Peng 1, Michael H Halper 1, Yehoshua Perl 1, James Geller 1
PMCID: PMC2244162  PMID: 12463896

Abstract

The UMLS's Semantic Network (SN) serves as a valuable abstraction for the underlying concept repository called the Metathesaurus (META). Specifically, the SN forms a classification layer for the META, with each of the META's constituent concepts assigned to one or more semantic types in the SN. The rule in the design of the SN is to have concepts explicitly assigned to the lowest possible semantic types in the SN's IS-A hierarchy. Implicit assignment to higher semantic types can be inferred via the IS-A relationships. However, in subsequent versions of the UMLS, unnecessary, simultaneous assignments to descendant and ancestor semantic types have been discovered (e.g., 8,622 in the UMLS 1998 version and 12,657 in the 2001 version). The assignment of concepts to such ancestor semantic types is called redundant classification. There is a need for an automated auditing tool that can identify all these redundant classifications. In this paper, an efficient algorithm for this auditing task is introduced. Details of its application to the current (2001) version of the UMLS are presented and the results are discussed.

Full text

PDF
612

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Campbell K. E., Oliver D. E., Shortliffe E. H. The Unified Medical Language System: toward a collaborative approach for solving terminologic problems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998 Jan-Feb;5(1):12–16. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1998.0050012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cimino J. J. Auditing the Unified Medical Language System with semantic methods. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998 Jan-Feb;5(1):41–51. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1998.0050041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gu H., Perl Y., Geller J., Halper M., Liu L. M., Cimino J. J. Representing the UMLS as an object-oriented database: modeling issues and advantages. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000 Jan-Feb;7(1):66–80. doi: 10.1136/jamia.2000.0070066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Humphreys B. L., Lindberg D. A., Schoolman H. M., Barnett G. O. The Unified Medical Language System: an informatics research collaboration. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998 Jan-Feb;5(1):1–11. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1998.0050001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. McCray A. T., Nelson S. J. The representation of meaning in the UMLS. Methods Inf Med. 1995 Mar;34(1-2):193–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium are provided here courtesy of American Medical Informatics Association

RESOURCES