- From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:54:12 -0700
- 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 650-725-5693
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:54:28 UTC