因果关系和因果关系的本体论表示:系统的文献综述。

Online journal of public health informatics Pub Date : 2022-09-07 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5210/ojphi.v14i1.12577
Suhila Sawesi, Mohamed Rashrash, Olaf Dammann
{"title":"因果关系和因果关系的本体论表示:系统的文献综述。","authors":"Suhila Sawesi,&nbsp;Mohamed Rashrash,&nbsp;Olaf Dammann","doi":"10.5210/ojphi.v14i1.12577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore how disease-related causality is formally represented in current ontologies and identify their potential limitations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search on eight databases (PubMed, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engendering (IEEE Xplore), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Scopus, Web of Science databases, Ontobee, OBO Foundry, and Bioportal. We included studies published between January 1, 1970, and December 9, 2020, that formally represent the notions of causality and causation in the medical domain using ontology as a representational tool. Further inclusion criteria were publication in English and peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. Two authors (SS, RM) independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a modified validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search strategy led to a total of 8,501 potentially relevant papers, of which 50 met the inclusion criteria. Only 14 out of 50 (28%) specified the nature of causation, and only 7 (14%) included clear and non-circular natural language definitions. Although several theories of causality were mentioned, none of the articles offers a widely accepted conceptualization of how causation and causality can be formally represented.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No current ontology captures the wealth of available concepts of causality. This provides an opportunity for the development of a formal ontology of causation/causality.</p>","PeriodicalId":74345,"journal":{"name":"Online journal of public health informatics","volume":" ","pages":"e4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9473331/pdf/ojphi-14-1-e4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Representation of Causality and Causation with Ontologies: A Systematic Literature Review.\",\"authors\":\"Suhila Sawesi,&nbsp;Mohamed Rashrash,&nbsp;Olaf Dammann\",\"doi\":\"10.5210/ojphi.v14i1.12577\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore how disease-related causality is formally represented in current ontologies and identify their potential limitations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search on eight databases (PubMed, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engendering (IEEE Xplore), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Scopus, Web of Science databases, Ontobee, OBO Foundry, and Bioportal. We included studies published between January 1, 1970, and December 9, 2020, that formally represent the notions of causality and causation in the medical domain using ontology as a representational tool. Further inclusion criteria were publication in English and peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. Two authors (SS, RM) independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a modified validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search strategy led to a total of 8,501 potentially relevant papers, of which 50 met the inclusion criteria. Only 14 out of 50 (28%) specified the nature of causation, and only 7 (14%) included clear and non-circular natural language definitions. Although several theories of causality were mentioned, none of the articles offers a widely accepted conceptualization of how causation and causality can be formally represented.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No current ontology captures the wealth of available concepts of causality. This provides an opportunity for the development of a formal ontology of causation/causality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74345,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Online journal of public health informatics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9473331/pdf/ojphi-14-1-e4.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Online journal of public health informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5210/ojphi.v14i1.12577\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online journal of public health informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5210/ojphi.v14i1.12577","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨疾病相关的因果关系如何在当前的本体中正式表示,并确定其潜在的局限性。方法:系统检索PubMed、IEEE Xplore、ACM、Scopus、Web of Science、Ontobee、OBO Foundry、Bioportal等8个数据库的文献。我们纳入了1970年1月1日至2020年12月9日之间发表的研究,这些研究使用本体作为表征工具正式表示了医学领域的因果关系和因果关系概念。进一步的纳入标准是在英文和同行评议的期刊或会议论文集上发表。两位作者(SS, RM)独立评估研究质量,并使用预先建立分类的改进的经过验证的提取网格进行内容分析。结果:通过搜索策略共获得8501篇潜在相关论文,其中50篇符合纳入标准。50篇论文中只有14篇(28%)明确说明了因果关系的本质,只有7篇(14%)包含了清晰和非循环的自然语言定义。虽然提到了几种因果关系理论,但没有一篇文章提供了一个被广泛接受的因果关系和因果关系如何被正式表示的概念化。结论:目前没有一个本体论囊括了大量的因果关系概念。这为因果关系/因果关系的正式本体论的发展提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Representation of Causality and Causation with Ontologies: A Systematic Literature Review.

Objective: To explore how disease-related causality is formally represented in current ontologies and identify their potential limitations.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search on eight databases (PubMed, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engendering (IEEE Xplore), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Scopus, Web of Science databases, Ontobee, OBO Foundry, and Bioportal. We included studies published between January 1, 1970, and December 9, 2020, that formally represent the notions of causality and causation in the medical domain using ontology as a representational tool. Further inclusion criteria were publication in English and peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. Two authors (SS, RM) independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a modified validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization.

Results: The search strategy led to a total of 8,501 potentially relevant papers, of which 50 met the inclusion criteria. Only 14 out of 50 (28%) specified the nature of causation, and only 7 (14%) included clear and non-circular natural language definitions. Although several theories of causality were mentioned, none of the articles offers a widely accepted conceptualization of how causation and causality can be formally represented.

Conclusion: No current ontology captures the wealth of available concepts of causality. This provides an opportunity for the development of a formal ontology of causation/causality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Population Digital Health: Continuous Health Monitoring and Profiling at Scale. Rank Ordered Design Attributes for Health Care Dashboards Including Artificial Intelligence: Usability Study. Attitudes of Health Professionals Toward Digital Health Data Security in Northwest Ethiopia: Cross-Sectional Study. Contact Tracing Different Age Groups During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Study From South-West Germany. Data Analytics to Support Policy Making for Noncommunicable Diseases: Scoping Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1