As a guest user you are not logged in or recognized by your IP address. You have
access to the Front Matter, Abstracts, Author Index, Subject Index and the full
text of Open Access publications.
Objectives. To contrast the coverage of diseases between the Disease Ontology (DO) and SNOMED CT, and to compare the hierarchical structure of the two ontologies.
Methods. We establish a reference list of mappings. We characterize unmapped concepts in DO semantically and structurally. Finally, we compare the hierarchical structure between the two ontologies.
Results. Overall, 4478 (65%) the 6931 DO concepts are mapped to SNOMED CT. The cancer and neoplasm subtrees of DO account for many of the unmapped concepts. The most frequent differentiae in unmapped concepts include morphology (for cancers and neoplasms), specific subtypes (for rare genetic disorders), and anatomical subtypes. Unmapped concepts usually form subtrees, and less often correspond to isolated leaves or intermediary concepts.
Conclusion. This detailed analysis of the gaps in coverage and structural differences between DO and SNOMED CT contributes to the interoperability between these two ontologies and will guide further validation of the mapping.
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. They also allow us to analyze user behavior in order to constantly improve the website for you. Info about the privacy policy of IOS Press.
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. They also allow us to analyze user behavior in order to constantly improve the website for you. Info about the privacy policy of IOS Press.