MIE2006-RIDE.ppt - Ontology Research Group

							               MIE 2006 Tutorial
            Standards and Ontology

                  Part 5: RIDE
A Roadmap for Interoperability of eHealth Systems
in Support of COM 356 with Special Emphasis on
            Semantic Interoperability

             Sunday August 27th, 2006

             Werner Ceusters, MD
           Office Line Engineering nv
RIDE: a European Project


           SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
                     PRIORITY 2.4.11
“Integrated biomedical information for better health”: eHealth




August 27, 2006                European Commission
                            MIE 2006 Tutorial               2
                        Standards and Ontologies
Motivation
   Action plan of the eHealth Communication COM (2004)
    356:
         “eHealth – Making Healthcare Better for European Citizens: An
          Action Plan for a European e-Health Area”


   RIDE = Roadmap Project
         Conducts research in interoperability of eHealth systems
         Goal: make recommendations for actions to be taken at the
          European level to achieve eHealth interoperability in member
          states and the associated states.




August 27, 2006                    MIE 2006 Tutorial                      3
                               Standards and Ontologies
eHealth Communication COM
(2004) 356’s main topic for RIDE

   By end 2006, Member States, in
    collaboration with the European
    Commission, should identify and outline
    interoperability standards for health
    data messages and electronic health
    records, taking into account best
    practices and relevant standardization
    efforts.

August 27, 2006        MIE 2006 Tutorial      4
                   Standards and Ontologies
RIDE Partnership
   Middle East Technical University, Software                Turkey
    Development and Research Center
   OFFIS      e.V.    Healthcare     Information     and   Germany
    Communication Systems
   Saarland University -Institute for Formal Ontology      Germany
    and Medical Information Science
   European Institute for Health Records
                                                              France
   National Council for Research, Institute for
    Biomedical Technology                                       Italy
   National Technical University of Athens, Institute of
    Communication and Computer Systems                        Greece
   National University of Ireland, Digital Enterprise
    Research Institute                                        Ireland
   IHE-D e. V., Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise      Germany
   Office Line Engineering NV                               Belgium

August 27, 2006                 MIE 2006 Tutorial                   5
                            Standards and Ontologies
Activity domain




August 27, 2006       MIE 2006 Tutorial      6
                  Standards and Ontologies
Organisation of efforts




August 27, 2006       MIE 2006 Tutorial      7
                  Standards and Ontologies
Work plan activities (1)
   Identify the current barriers for semantic interoperability
    in standards for health data messages and electronic health
    records as well as tools for semantic interoperability with
    the goal to set priorities for further in-depth studies
   Assess the European best practices in providing semantic
    interoperability for eHealth domain
   Identify the goals and the economical, legal, financial and
    technological challenges of the industry for the 21st
    century for achieving semantic interoperability in eHealth
    solutions
   Identify the limitations of the policies and strategies
    currently used in deploying eHealth solutions in clinical
    settings

August 27, 2006               MIE 2006 Tutorial               8
                          Standards and Ontologies
Work plan activities (2)
   Provide a shared vision for building a Europe-
    wide semantically interoperable eHealth
    infrastructure
   Assess the gaps between the “as-is” situation in
    eHealth and the “to-be” eHealth vision
   Identify the emerging trends and
    opportunities to achieve the vision statement
   Identify key actors and stakeholders and
    prepare co-operation between them
   Create a wide consensus at the European level
    for semantic interoperability in eHealth domain
    through RIDE dissemination activities
August 27, 2006           MIE 2006 Tutorial            9
                      Standards and Ontologies
Timeline Jan 1, 2006 – Dec 31, 2007
   M1 Creation of RIDE Project Portal (Month2)
 M2 Analysis of state of the art research, technology and standards (Month4)
 M3 Collection of User Requirements (Month 6)
 M4 Goals and Challenges for semantic interoperability in eHealth Domain v1
    (Month 8)
 M5 Vision for a Europe-wide semantically interoperable eHealth infrastructure
    v1 (Mth 8)
 M6 First version of Roadmaps (Month 12)
 M7 Final Goals and Challenges for semantic interoperability in eHealth Domain
    (Mth 12)
 M8 Final Vision for a Europe-wide semantically interoperable eHealth
    infrastructure (Month 14)
 M9 Final Gap Analysis (Month 16)
 M10 Final Trends and Opportunities (Month 18)
 M11 Second version of Roadmaps(Month 20)
 M12 Final RIDE Roadmaps(Month 24)
 M13 Final RIDE Workshop(Month 24)
 M14 Proposals to Standardization Bodies (Month 24)
 M15 Final Project Report (Month 24) Tutorial
August 27, 2006                  MIE 2006                                  10
                              Standards and Ontologies
Number of ‘relevant’ standards in
eHealth

   U.S. National Alliance for Health
    Information Technology (NAHIT)
         Directory of eHealth Standards
         On April 26, 2006
                 2104 standards related to ICT in healthcare,
                 produced by 436 separate organizations.




August 27, 2006                      MIE 2006 Tutorial
                                                                                 ?  11
                                 Standards and Ontologies
                                                       http://www.nahit.org/hitsdir/pgLCA,
NAHIT eHealth Standards Directory
   874     transferring messages
   496     code sets, classification systems, and nomenclatures
   295     uniform protection of healthcare information
   191     patient records (data content and storage format)
   144     computer-readable data technology
    96     message format for administrative and financial transactions
    73     data requirements for content; core elements of a data set
    63     drug and prescription related
    57     imaging data in healthcare such as x-rays and other clinical images

     49 uniquely identifying patient, provider, site of care
     40 integration of information technology in healthcare quality measures

     36 auto-identification technologies (RFID, EPC)
     32 wireless communications
     28 electronic collection, storage and transmission of data for the
         distribution channel of a product
     83 „other‟
August 27, 2006                       MIE 2006 Tutorial                           12
                                  Standards and Ontologies
Problem to solve: making this
scenario possible
   An ophtalmologist is going to visit a diabetic patient.
   He receives
      from the GP in charge of that patient all relevant
        information about history and active problems
      from the diabetologist the pertinent information about
        current state of complications.
   Issues of confidentiality and security are solved,
   Clinical information is directly exchanged between the
    computers of the above professionals, through the web.
   The record system of the ophtalmologist
      rearranges each unit of information under the proper
        section
      prepares links to potentially relevant guidelines, to a
        drug database, and to information for patients
August 27, 2006               MIE 2006 Tutorial                                                       13
                                        Cimino JJ,
                          Standards and OntologiesElhanan GE, Zeng Q. Supporting infobuttons with terminological
                                                knowledge. J Am Med Inform Assoc Symp Suppl 1997;528-32
Future scenarios

 Data entered about a successful treatment of
  a case in X generates a suggestion for a
  similar case in Y;
 Submission of a new paper to Pubmed on
  some ADR triggers an alert in EHR systems
  worldwide for those patients that might be at
  risk;
…
 From reactive care to proactive care

August 27, 2006       MIE 2006 Tutorial      14
                  Standards and Ontologies
Main Focus of RIDE:
Semantic Interoperability

    Working definition:
     Two information systems are semantically
     interoperable if and only if each can carry
     out the tasks for which it was designed
     using data and information taken from the
     other as seemlessly as using its own data
     and information.


 August 27, 2006         MIE 2006 Tutorial      15
                     Standards and Ontologies
Expected benefits of semantic
interoperability
   Healthcare professionals
   Patients
   Service delivery organisations
   National and regional authorities
   Educators
   Researchers
   Vendors
   System integrators
   Standard developments organisations
   Public health organisations       Canada Health Infoway, Electronic
                                                      Health Record (EHR) Standards
August 27, 2006                MIE 2006 Tutorial                                16
                           Standards and Ontologies   Needs Analysis, Toronto, Ontario,
                                                              March 31, 2004
Expected benefits of semantic
interoperability
   For healthcare professionals:
         Improved quality and consistency of care through timely
          access to comparable data from multiple sources;
         Increased use of structured and measurable information
          rather than free-text only,
         Reduced reliance on verbal and anecdotal exchange of
          health information;
         More accurate and effective communication among
          providers;
         Reduced duplication of effort;
         Better ability to consolidate clinical findings;
         Shorter elapsed time between steps in the care process;
         Higher probability of positive patient outcomes.
August 27, 2006                 MIE 2006 Tutorial                                  17
                               Canada Health Infoway, Electronic Health Record (EHR)
                            Standards and Ontologies
                             Standards Needs Analysis, Toronto, Ontario, March 31, 2004
Identified key areas
 The structured content of Patient
  Summary,
 Ontology languages and tools,
 Terminologies and coding schemes, i.e.
  classifications, nomenclatures and
  thesauri




August 27, 2006       MIE 2006 Tutorial      18
                  Standards and Ontologies
Some Ontology Representation
Languages
   LOOM: based on DLs and production rules, and
    provides automatic classifications of concepts.
    (1991)
   KIF: based on first order logic created as an
    interchange format for diverse KR systems. No
    reasoning support. (1992)
   OCML: built for developing executable ontologies
    and models in problem solving methods. (1993)
   SHOE: extension of HTML (1996)
   XOL: XMLization of a small subset of primitives
    from the OKBC protocol, called OKBC-Lite. (1999)
   RDF  OIL  DAML-ONT  OWL (2004)
August 27, 2006          MIE 2006 Tutorial         19
                     Standards and Ontologies
 XML  XML(S)  RDF 
 RDF(s)  OWL
   XML provides a surface syntax for structured documents,
    but imposes no semantic constraints on the meaning of
    these documents.
   XML Schema is a language for restricting the structure of
    XML documents.
   RDF is a datamodel with simple semantics for objects
    ("resources") and relations between them that can be
    represented in (thus constrained by!) XML syntax.
   RDF Schema is a vocabulary for describing properties and
    classes of RDF resources, with a semantics for
    generalization-hierarchies of such properties and classes.
   OWL adds more vocabulary for describing properties and
    classes: among others, relations between classes (e.g.
    disjointness), cardinality (e.g. "exactly one"), equality,
    richer typing of properties, characteristics of properties
    (e.g. symmetry), and enumerated classes.
August 27, 2006              MIE 2006 Tutorial               20
                         Standards and Ontologies
OWL language basics
   OWL Lite supports a classification hierarchy and
    simple constraints. It only permits cardinality
    values of 0 or 1.
   OWL DL (so named due to its correspondence
    with description logics) provides maximum
    expressiveness while retaining
       computational completeness (all conclusions are
        guaranteed to be computed) and
       decidability (all computations will finish in finite time).
   OWL Full gives maximum expressiveness and
    the syntactic freedom of RDF with no
    computational guarantees. OWL Full allows an
    ontology to augment the meaning of the pre-
                            vocabulary.
    defined (RDF or OWL) 2006 Tutorial
August 27, 2006         MIE                                           21
                            Standards and Ontologies
The use of such languages does not
guarantee building error-free systems
   Smith B, Williams J, Schulze-Kremer S. The ontology of the gene ontology. In:
    Musen MA, editor. AMIA 2003. Proceedings of AMIA 2003 Annual Symposium; 2003
    Nov 8-12, Washington D.C., USA. AMIA; 2003. p. 609-13.
   Grenon P, Smith B, Goldberg L. Biodynamic ontology: Applying BFO in the
    Biomedical Domain, in Pisanelli DM (ed). Ontologies in Medicine. Proceedings of the
    Workshop on Medical Ontologies, Rome October 2003. IOS Press, Studies in Health
    Technology and Informatics, vol 102, 2004. p. 20-38.
   Ceusters W, Smith B, Kumar A, Dhaen C. Ontology-Based Error Detection in
    SNOMED-CT®. In: M. Fieschi, E. Coiera and Y-C.J. Li, editors. MEDINFO 2004.
    Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Medical Informatics; 2004 Sep 7-11, San
    Francisco, CA, USA. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2004. p. 482-6.
   Smith B, Rosse C. The role of foundational relations in the alignment of
    biomedical ontologies. In: M. Fieschi, E. Coiera and Y-C.J. Li, editors. MEDINFO
    2004. Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Medical Informatics; 2004 Sep 7-
    11, San Francisco, CA, USA. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2004. p. 444-8.
   Kumar A, Schulze-Kremer S, Smith B. Revising the UMLS Semantic Network. In:
    M. Fieschi, E. Coiera and Y-C.J. Li, editors. MEDINFO 2004. Proceedings of the 11th
    World Congress on Medical Informatics; 2004 Sep 7-11, San Francisco, CA, USA.
    Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2004. p. 1700-4.
   Ceusters W, Smith B. A Terminological and Ontological Analysis of the NCI
    Thesaurus. Methods of Information in Medicine 2005; 44: 498-507.


August 27, 2006                       MIE 2006 Tutorial                              22
                                  Standards and Ontologies
Standardisation efforts concerning
biomedical ontologies
 Bioinformatics Data Structures - Framework
  and Overview (BSR/IEEE 1953-200x)
 Standard for Sequence Ontology (BSR/IEEE
  1953.1-200x)
 Open Biomedical Ontologies
 The OBO Foundry
 caDSR: uses the ISO/IEC 11179 metadata
  repository standard to standardise the way
  identical kinds of data are collected across
  different cancer research studies.
August 27, 2006       MIE 2006 Tutorial      23
                  Standards and Ontologies
Available deliverables
   D 2.1.1 European Current practices in providing
    semantic interoperability in eHealth domain:
    Survey of eHealth Practices (Czech Republic)
         Survey of 27 countries and States
   D1.1.8-ProjectPresentation
   D2.2.1 Standardization efforts for providing
    semantic interoperability in eHealth domain
   D.5.3.1 – Proposals to Standardization Bodies:
    ebBP Profile for Integrating Healthcare Enterprise
    (IHE)


August 27, 2006                 MIE 2006 Tutorial      24
                            Standards and Ontologies
August 27, 2006       MIE 2006 Tutorial      25
                  Standards and Ontologies
         Contact
http://www.srdc.metu.edu.tr/w
ebpage/projects/ride/index.php