- From: Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:43:58 +0200
- To: Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org>
- Cc: Kathrin Dentler <k.dentler@vu.nl>, HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALcEXf5R54BSniEi30ommscVE6-5FHA=rwP4PwT5RWOYyGV6cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Google Scholar says: http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=18026669919486573499&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en m. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andrea Splendiani < andrea.splendiani@iscb.org> wrote: > HI, > > thanks and sorry for the late reply. I have been doing a bit of reading. > Let's say I am up2date until more or less the date of your review (2007). > > First, I wonder if something new come out since then (rather than > evolutions of approaches/standards already existing). > > Second, I got the impression that rationales to standardize clinical > trials criteria vary a lot. Mining EHRs for candidates has different > requirements from criteria re-use, which in turns has different > requirements from (trials) discovery. > I was looking for some sampling of criteria in use in clinical trials. > Could not find anything (at least open). Does anybody have some pointer in > this direction ? > > > best, > Andrea > > > > Il giorno 15/lug/2013, alle ore 07:21, Kathrin Dentler <k.dentler@vu.nl> > ha scritto: > > > Hi Andrea, > > > > For a first broad overview, this paper is a good starting point: > > Formal representation of eligibility criteria: A literature review > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046409001592 > > > > For CDISC, there is ongoing work on OWL/RDF formats: > > > http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/terminologyresources/cdisc > > http://kerfors.blogspot.nl/2012/05/semantic-models-for-cdisc-based.html > > > > Best, > > Kathrin > > > > > > > > Op 7/15/13 1:34 AM, Andrea Splendiani schreef: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I was wondering if somebody could provide some pointer to work going on > in an area that is related to clinical trials: inclusion and exclusion > criteria. > >> (I have followed the recent thread on encoding Hamilton Disease and > pointers). > >> > >> In, particular, I am interested in two things: > >> Standards with substantial uptake (sub question: is CDISC's uptake > actual or perspective ?). > >> > >> Modeling of inclusion/exclusion criteria, but with a particular twist: > not modeling the questions, but the facts that are queried. Basically I am > interested in modeling patients and conditions (to the level of detail > required "usually" required by clinical trials). The subject itself can be > very vast, but is there a framework which provides at least an upper > perspective on how to model subjects's features, diseases, interventions, > samples (also respect to time) ? > >> > >> Any pointer is welcome! > >> > >> best, > >> Andrea Splendiani > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Kathrin Dentler > > > > AI Department | Department of Medical Informatics > > Faculty of Sciences | Academic Medical Center > > Vrije Universiteit | Universiteit van Amsterdam > > k.dentler@vu.nl | k.dentler@amc.uva.nl > > > > http://www.few.vu.nl/~kdr250/ > > > > > > > -- Michel Dumontier Associate Professor of Bioinformatics, Carleton University Chair, W3C Semantic Web for Health Care and the Life Sciences Interest Group http://dumontierlab.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 07:44:45 UTC