Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2012; 51(06): 519-528
DOI: 10.3414/ME11-02-0024
Focus Theme – Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Development of ICD-10-TM Ontology for a Semi-automated Morbidity Coding System in Thailand

S. Nitsuwat
1   Faculty of Information Technology, King Mongkut´s University of Technology North Bangkok (KMUTNB), Thailand
,
W. Paoin
1   Faculty of Information Technology, King Mongkut´s University of Technology North Bangkok (KMUTNB), Thailand
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received:22 August 2011

accepted:19 February 2012

Publication Date:
20 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: The International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Thai Modification (ICD-10-TM) ontology is a knowledge base created from the Thai modification of the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. The objectives of this research were to develop the ICD-10-TM ontology as a knowledge base for use in a semi-automated ICD coding system and to test the usability of this system.

Methods: ICD concepts and relations were identified from a tabular list and alphabetical indexes. An ICD-10-TM ontology was defined in the resource description framework (RDF), notation-3 (N3) format. All ICD-10-TM contents available as Microsoft Word documents were transformed into N3 format using Python scripts. Final RDF files were validated by ICD experts. The ontology was implemented as a knowledge base by using a novel semi-automated ICD coding system. Evaluation of usability was performed by a survey of forty volunteer users.

Results: The ICD-10-TM ontology consists of two main knowledge bases (a tabular list knowledge base and an index knowledge base) containing a total of 309,985 concepts and 162,092 relations. The tabular list knowledge base can be divided into an upper level ontology, which defines hierarchical relationships between 22 ICD chapters, and a lower level ontology which defines relations between chapters, blocks, categories, rubrics and basic elements (include, exclude, synonym etc.)of the ICD tabular list. The index knowledge base describes relations between keywords, modifiers in general format and a table format of the ICD index. In this research, the creation of an ICD index ontology revealed interesting findings on problems with the current ICD index structure. One problem with the current structure is that it defines conditions that complicate pregnancy and perinatal conditions on the same hierarchical level as organ system diseases. This could mislead a coding algorithm into a wrong selection of ICD code. To prevent these coding errors by an algorithm, the ICD-10-TM index structure was modified by raising conditions complicating pregnancy and perinatal conditions into a higher hierarchical level of the index knowledge base. The modified ICD-10-TM ontology was implemented as a knowledge base in semi-automated ICD-10-TM coding software. A survey of users of the software revealed a high percentage of correct results obtained from ontology searches (> 95%) and user satisfaction on the usability of the ontology.

Conclusion: The ICD-10-TM ontology is the first ICD-10 ontology with a comprehensive description of all concepts and relations in an ICD-10-TM tabular list and alphabetical index. A researcher developing an automated ICD coding system should be aware of The ICD index structure and the complexity of coding processes. These coding systems are not a word matching process. ICD-10 ontology should be used as a knowledge base in The ICD coding software. It can be used to facilitate successful implementation of ICD in developing countries, especially in those countries which do not have an adequate number of competent ICD coders.

Keywords

ICD-10 ontology - semi-automated ICD coding system - ICD knowledge base - ICD search
 

  • References

  • 1 Guarino N. Formal ontology in information systems. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference; Jun 6 – 8, 1998. Trento, Italy: IOS Press; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 2 The World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: The World Health Organiztion; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 3 The World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. 2nd Edition. Geneva, Switzerland: The World Health Organization; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 4 The World Health Organization. ICD-10 online (Internet). Geneva, Switzerland: The World Health Organization; 2011 (cited Jun 30, 2011). Available from. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bureau of Policy and Strategy, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand. International Statistical Classifi-cation of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Thai Modification (ICD-10-TM). Nonthaburi, Thailand: The Ministry of Public Health, Thailand; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Paoin W. Development of ICD-10-Thai Modification in Thailand. Meeting of WHO Collaborating Centres for the Family of the International Classification: Document C406 (Internet). Geneva, Switzerland: the World Health Organization; 2006. (cited Aug 12, 2011). Available from http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/meetings/2006meeting/WHOFIC2006- C406- Development of ICD-10 Thai Modification in Thailand.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Gartner’s 2006 emerging technologies hype cycle highlights key technology themes. Gartner Incorporated. 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hu B, Dasmahapatra S, Dupplaw D, Lewis P, Shadbolt N. Reflections on a Medical Ontology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2007; 65 (07) 569-582.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Guzman-Arenas A, Cuevas AD. Knowledge accumulation through automatic merging of ontologies. Expert Systems with Applications 2010; 37: 1991-2005.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rector A. Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including OWL. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2003); Oct 23-225. Florida, USA: 2003: 121-128.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Maedche A, Motik B, Stojanovic L. Managing multiple and distributed ontology on the semantic web. The International Journal on Very Large Data Base 2003; 12 (04) 286-302.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Maedche A, Motik B, Stojanovic L, Struder R, Volz R. An infrastructure for searching, reusing and evolving distributed ontologies. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web. New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2003: 439-448.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Yu AC. Methods in biomedical ontology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2006; 39: 252-266.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cimino JJ. Desiderata for controlled medical vocabularies in the twenty first century. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37 4–5 394-403.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bodenreider O, Smith B, Kumar A, Burgun A. Investigating subsumption in DL-based terminologies: a case study in SNOMED CT. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Formal Biomedical Knowledge Representation (KR-MED 2004); 2004. Whistler, Canada: the Ameican Medical Informatics Association; 2004: 12-20.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Ceusters W, Smith B, Flanagan J. Ontology and medical terminology: why description logics are not enough. Proceedings of the Conference: Towards an Electronic Patient Record (TEPR 2003), May 10–14, 2003. Boston, USA: Medical Records Institute; 2003: 1-10.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Spackman KA. Normal forms for description logic expressions of clinical concepts in SNOMED RT. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Symposium; Oct 16–22, 2001. Washington DC, USA: The American Medical Informatics Association; 2001: 627-631.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Maintainers. Unified Medical Language System (Internet)(cited Nov 12. 2011). Available from. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/about-umls.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Burgun A, Bodenreider O. Mapping the UMLS semantic network into general ontologies. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Symposium; Oct 16–22, 2001. Washington DC, USA: The Ameican Medical Informatics Association; 2001: 81-85.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Pisanelli DM, Gangemi M. If ontology is the solution, what is the problem? In. Pisanelli DM. Editor Ontologies in medicine. Berke, VA: IOS Press; 2004: 1-19.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kumar A, Yip L, Smith B, Grenon P. Bridging the gap between medical and bioinformatics using formal ontological principles. Computer in Biology and Medicine 2006; 36 (07) 694-711.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Orgun B, Vu J. HL-7 ontology and mobile agents for interoperability in heterogeneous medical information systems. Computer in Biology and Medicine 2006; 36: 817-836.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rosse C, Mejino Jr JL. A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: the Foundational Model of Anatomy. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2003; 36 (06) 478-500.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Musen MA. Clinical decision-support systems. In. Shortliffe E, Perreault L, Wiederhold G, Fagan L. Editors Medical informatics: computer application in health care and biomedicine. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001: 573-609.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Musen MA. Modern architecture for the intelligent systems: reusable. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association Symposium; Nov 10–11,1998. Orlando Florida, USA: The American Medical Informatics Association; 1998: 46-52.
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The ProtÉ;gÉ; Ontology Editor and Knowledge Acquisition System. Available from. http://protege.stanford.edu
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 The World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. Volume 2 Geneva, Switzerland: The World Health Organiztion; 2004: 32
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Yamada H, Kuwata S, Park K, Ohata K. Analysis of Human and System Factors on Errors in ICD Coding with Electronic Discharge Summary System. E-Health 2010, IFIP IACT 335 2010; 234-235.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Innes K, Karen P, Roberts R. Ten Down Under: Implementing ICD-10 in Australia. Journal of AHIMA 2000; 71 (01) 52-56.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lovis C, Baud R, Rassinoux AM, Michel PA, Scherrer JR. Building medical dictionaries for patient encoding systems: A methodology. In: Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Heidelberg: Springer; 1997: 373-380.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Heja G, Surjan G. Semi-automatic classification of clinical diagnoses with hybrid approach. Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on computer based medical system – CBMS 2002; Jun 4–7, 2002. Maribor, Slovenia: IEEE Computer Society Press; 2002: 347-352.
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Pakhomov SVS, Buntrock JD, CG Chute. Automating the assignment of diagnosis codes to patient encounters using example-based and machine learning techniques. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2006; 13: 516-525.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Periera S, Neveol A, Masari P, Joubert M. Construction of a semi-automated ICD-10 coding help system to optimize medical and economic coding. In Hasman A, et al., editors. Ubiquity: Technologies for Better Health in Aging Societies. VA: IOS Press 2006; 845-850.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 RDF Notation 3 (Internet).The World Wide Web Consortium (cited Jun 12, 2011). Available from. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Semi-automated ICD-10-TM coding system [internet]. Nonthaburi, Thailand: The Thai Health Coding Center, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand (cited Aug 12, 2011). Available from. http://www.thcc.or.th/formbasic/regis.php
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 ICD-10 Ontology (Internet). Trento: The Data & Knowledge Management (DKM) Unit, Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK)(cited Apr 13, 2011). Available from. https://dkm.fbk.eu/index.php/ICD-10_Ontology
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Prins H, Hasman A. Long-term impact of physician encoding on detail and number of recorded diagnoses support by a speciality specific list of diseases. Methods Inf Med 2011; 50 (02) 115-123.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Paoin W, Nitsuwat S. Development of ICD-10-TM ontology for semi-automated morbidity coding system in Thailand. Proceedings of the WHO-FIC Annual Meeting 2010 (Iinternet). Geneva, Switzerland: The World Health Organization (citedJul 30, 2011). Available from. http://www.who.int/classifications/network/meeting2010/en/index.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar