W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Mammographic ontology

From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:23:30 -0800
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080213192048.04ba1a08@med.stanford.edu>
To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>,helen.chen@agfa.com, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

FYI--the American College of Radiology created the BI-RADS 
terminology precisely for the purposes of providing a controlled 
lexicon for radiology observations on mammography. Extensions on this 
are needed to describe findings in ultrasound and MRI (future work in 
BI-RADS). There is a possibility that these terms will be 
incorporated into RadLex as well. Thus, you might not want to build 
on this, focusing on adding the clinical indications or other 
information that is not related to image observations.

Daniel

At 11:13 AM 2/12/2008, Matt Williams wrote:

>Dear Helen,
>
>At the moment we have some structure with a patient, who has one or 
>more studies, each of which has one or more images associated with 
>it. each image has zero or more lesions associated with it.
>
>We're working with a dataset of ~400 mammogram reports, and using 
>this as the basis for the developing the ontology (to check 
>coverage, etc.). As a result, the patient info is reasonably sparse 
>(as not much/ if anything is supplied, apart from some demographic 
>info for most patients). The lesion info is really where there's a 
>bit more detail - calcification, masses, etc. and a little bit more 
>at the study level (reporting BIRADS category, etc.).
>
>Does that answer your questions? What we've done is fairly sparse at 
>the moment, but in theory shouldn't take that long to flesh out, at 
>least to the level you've described. I'm guessing AGFA has done a 
>bit more on this - do you have any pointers/ papers/ work to suggest.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Matt
>
>helen.chen@agfa.com wrote:
>>Matt
>>Can you elaborate on what aspects of mammography you include in 
>>your ontology?  I am interested in the diagnostic aspect, i.e. 
>>image features, patient clinical information and the diagnosis to 
>>breast cancer.
>>Kind regards.
>>Helen
>>
>>
>>*Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>*
>>Sent by: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
>>02/12/2008 01:35 PM
>>
>>To
>>         public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
>>cc
>>
>>Subject
>>         Mammographic ontology
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear All,
>>Have just been reading the wiki. I note that there is a section on doing
>>a mammogram as a screening test. I have been doing some work on a
>>mammographic ontology, which we might be able to contribute (need to
>>talk to other authors).
>>Would this be useful?
>>How can I align it with existing terms (e.g. from GALEN, etc.)?
>>Matt
>>-- http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
>>http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
>>+44 (0)7834 899570
>
>--
>http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
>http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
>+44 (0)7834 899570
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 03:23:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:51 GMT