ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
An ontology-based tool for modeling and documenting events in neurosurgery.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) plays a pivotal role in enhancing patient safety during neurosurgical procedures. This vital technique involves the continuous measurement of evoked potentials to provide early warnings and ensure the preservation of critical neural structures. One of the primary challenges has been the effective documentation of IOM events with semantically enriched characterizations. This study aimed to address this challenge by developing an ontology-based tool.
methodsWe structured the development of the IOM Documentation Ontology (IOMDO) and the associated tool into three distinct phases. The initial phase focused on the ontology's creation, drawing from the OBO (Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology) principles. The subsequent phase involved agile software development, a flexible approach to encapsulate the diverse requirements and swiftly produce a prototype. The last phase entailed practical evaluation within real-world documentation settings. This crucial stage enabled us to gather firsthand insights, assessing the tool's functionality and efficacy. The observations made during this phase formed the basis for essential adjustments to ensure the tool's productive utilization.
resultsThe core entities of the ontology revolve around central aspects of IOM, including measurements characterized by timestamp, type, values, and location. Concepts and terms of several ontologies were integrated into IOMDO, e.g., the Foundation Model of Anatomy (FMA), the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) and the ontology for surgical process models (OntoSPM) related to general surgical terms. The software tool developed for extending the ontology and the associated knowledge base was built with JavaFX for the user-friendly frontend and Apache Jena for the robust backend. The tool's evaluation involved test users who unanimously found the interface accessible and usable, even for those without extensive technical expertise.
conclusionsThrough the establishment of a structured and standardized framework for characterizing IOM events, our ontology-based tool holds the potential to enhance the quality of documentation, benefiting patient care by improving the foundation for informed decision-making. Furthermore, researchers can leverage the semantically enriched data to identify trends, patterns, and areas for surgical practice enhancement. To optimize documentation through ontology-based approaches, it's crucial to address potential modeling issues that are associated with the Ontology of Adverse Events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.