ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2017
Improving the 'Fitness for Purpose' of Common Data Models through Realism Based Ontology.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Data Warehousing: A Scoping Review.Journal of the Society for Clinical Data Management · 2024Article
- Design considerations for a hierarchical semantic compositional framework for medical natural language understanding.PloS one · 2023Article
- Transforming Anesthesia Data Into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Amplifying Domain Expertise in Clinical Data Pipelines.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Enhancing the Representational Power of i2b2 through Referent Tracking.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- The Veterans Precision Oncology Data Commons: Transforming VA data into a national resource for research in precision oncology.Seminars in oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Common data models are designed and built based on requirements that are aimed towards fitness for purpose. But when common data models are used as lenses through which reality is observed from the perspective according to which they are built, then they exhibit restrictions that distort such view. Realism-based ontology design, when done properly, does not have these limitations as its fitness for purpose is only determined by the degree to which reality is represented the way it is. Therefore, we can use the principles that realism-based ontologies adhere to, not only to design application ontologies serving some specific purpose, but also to assess whether and where common data models fall short in their representational adequacy and how they can be corrected. If a realism based ontological perspective on the portion of reality the some common data model is trying to represent is compared with the perspective of the common data model itself, it is possible to determine how the latter deviates from the former and to suggest solutions to correct the misrepresentations found. Applying this method to the common data model of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership, revealed two major categories of errors: one where relationships are restricted based on the constraints of the data model, and one where the representation of reality is oversimplified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29854108PMC5977618What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.