W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [BIONT-DSE] Inclusion versus exclusion criteria

From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:54:12 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Kavitha Srinivas <ksrinivs@gmail.com>, "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu,Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Andersson, Bo H" <Bo.H.Andersson@astrazeneca.com>, Landen Bain <lbain@topsailtech.com>, Rachel Richesson <Rachel.Richesson@epi.usf.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, public-hcls-dse@w3.org,Stanley Huff <Stan.Huff@intermountainmail.org>, Yan Heras <Yan.Heras@intermountainmail.org>, "Oniki, Tom (GE Healthcare, consultant)" <Tom.Oniki@ge.com>, Joey Coyle <joey@xcoyle.com>,"Bron W. Kisler" <bkisler@earthlink.net>, Ida Sim <sim@medicine.ucsf.edu>

At 08:06 AM 9/12/2007, Kavitha Srinivas wrote:

>1.  Yes, as Chintan said, in the case where you had explicit
>negations in the data (e.g., the lab data rules out the presence of a
>certain infectious agent), you clearly want to use open world
>reasoning.  However, if someone is not explicitly asserted to be on
>some prescription drug, it is fair to assume that they are not taking
>the drug (closed world assumption).

Actually, it is dangerous to assume anything if a patient is not 
explicitly asserted to be taking any particular drug--omissions on 
drug histories happen all the time...
Likewise, making any generalized statements about when open- and 
closed-world reasoning are appropriate in health care is 
dangerous--one must be very specific about the context and specific 
case to assess whether the assumption is valid.


Daniel Rubin, MD, MS
Clinical Asst. Professor, Radiology
Research Scientist, Stanford Medical Informatics
Scientific Director, National Center of Biomedical Ontology
MSOB X-215
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:54:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:33 UTC