Dear All,
This is meant as a friendly comment, and perhaps a comment on the need
for further work. FWIW, I'm a UK based Oncology Reg. (can't translate to
US terms - sorry) just coming to the end of a PhD in CS. The PhD was
peripherally involved with ontologies, and I have edited OWL files by
I'd agree (and raised this in an email about 2 weeks ago). I'm
interested in the area, but currently work for an organisation that
isn't going to pay for membership. I also wouldn't read the archives
I don't really see why it should be restricted; having more members is
not really more e
Dear All,
Have been through the minutes. Very stimulating, as usual.
Just one plea (form someone who is neither a member of a W3C body NOR an
IE)please don't restrict the mailing list to these people in these
groups.
There's seemed to be a reasonable amount of discussion about tryin
Dear Helen,
I'd be very interested in how you get on. I can't see how to extract a
SNOMED-CT ID from RxNorm in the navigator, but I'm sure it can be done
from the dataset.
More generally, I'm interested why you didn't use drug names from
something like Pubmed (I'm sure there's a reason - I
core: 70%
-Alan
On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Matt Williams wrote:
Just a quick note that the 'trust' we place in an agent /could/ be
described probabilistically, but could also be described logically.
I'm assuming that the probabilities that the trust annotations are
likely
I'd agree - I suspect that simply matching terms doesn't help that much
- we'd need to know the context of it, but then it all gets very sticky.
There is some work on mining the Chemistry literature from Cambridge
(UK) - using ? OSCAR/ Sci-ML I think
We've done a little work in the clin
Dear All,
Just a note on this:
For example, article pmid:123 contains the text
>> "We found that bananas are yellow. This is in conflict with article
>> pmid:456, which states that bananas are pink".
>>
>> Article pmid:123 should only be annotated with
>> "banana has_quality yellow .
>> pmid:12
Just a quick note that the 'trust' we place in an agent /could/ be
described probabilistically, but could also be described logically. I'm
assuming that the probabilities that the trust annotations are likely to
subjective probabilities (as we're unlikely to have enough data to
generate objec
formation and the diagnosis to breast
cancer.
Kind regards.
Helen
*Matt Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
02/12/2008 01:35 PM
To
public-semweb-lifesci hcls
cc
Subject
Mammographic ontology
Dear All,
Have jus
Dear All,
Have just been reading the wiki. I note that there is a section on doing
a mammogram as a screening test. I have been doing some work on a
mammographic ontology, which we might be able to contribute (need to
talk to other authors).
Would this be useful?
How can I align it with ex
Dear All,
Just back from the Int. conf. on Tools in AI 2007 in Greece.
A reasonable amount of use of OWL/RDF for many things. One in particular
thought might interest people: a project to map legacy German Nephrology
DBs into RDF.
The paper isn't yet up, but the author's home page is linked
Before getting to hung up on GLIF per se, you might want to consider
some of the other Guideline representation languages such as (OTTOMH)
Asbru, ProForma, Guide, Prodigy, etc.
Have a look at Openclinical.net for (many) more pointers
There is a comparison of some of them from a JAMIA 2002 ar
majority of the data lies in MRI/PET,
rather than anything else (MRA, etc.)
HTH,
Matt
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Ok. From which document did you get the information about the
particulars of the schema you mention?
-Alan
On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Matt Williams wrote:
No, I didn't - chasing
Dear All,
Have just realised the time of this call (in UK terms) which clashes
with me picking up the kids.
Sorry.
I will summarise those things I have anything to say anything about in
advance, and comment on the minutes (assuming they're on the wiki).
Apologies,
Matt
Susie M Stephens w
would prohibit our publishing any of the
content in a demo. Is that your read too?
-Alan
On Oct 5, 2007, at 4:22 AM, Matt Williams wrote:
Dear All,
This is to try an sketch the outlines of the data that seem to be
available in ADNI/ LONI, and so solict requests for additional info.
The Alzhei
*Kei Cheung* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Another GIS/Cancer of interest: http://gis.cancer.gov/
-Kei
Matt Williams wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Further to my previous email, a different source of data might
be the
Dear All,
Further to my previous email, a different source of data might be the
Globocan/ Cancer Mondial data on Cancer Epidemiology from IARC
(http://www-dep.iarc.fr/).
Again, to make value from this, I think we would need to link it with
other things; One obvious route would be through GI
t possible - but
you tell us whether you think that is of value...
-Alan
On Oct 5, 2007, at 4:26 AM, Matt Williams wrote:
I've had a very quick look at this. It might be salutary to read some
parts of the data-user agreement.
1. You will not use nor permit others to use the data in any
If work goes well tomorrow, perhaps.
Else perhaps Monday pm.
Daniel - can we divide this sensibly?
Matt
Susie Stephens wrote:
Hi Matt, Daniel,
It would be great if you were able to write a brief description of the
data set, list the terms that are used, and also provide some
information
FWIW, I'd agree. I've used the data before for some work integrating
Bayesian Nets & Ontologies (see 1 & 2). The data set is probably not
(that) large by bioinformatics terms, but it is (clearly) clinically
relevant, and so might help encourage clinically-minded people to have a
look.
The r
Dear All,
I have added some more stuff to this on Toulmin-style evidential
reasoning; I'll try and finish it tomorrow.
Matt
--
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
y with evidence - which includes dealing in a consistent manner
with "information" entities.
I think Vipul, Matt Williams, Chimezie, Daniel and others have all
raised important issues in regards to evidence. I would also cite
two active threads in the HCLS IG that have direct bea
I changed the subject line to make it more specific.
I think that Evidence is a tricky, slippery subject. It seems to be both
traces (i.e. records of something) and in many cases, inferences. Those
inferences probably shouldn't be called evidence, but they are the
reason that some data are co
a look at the links you sent and probably be in touch
Matt
Dan Brickley wrote:
Matt Williams wrote:
I've been lurking & reading the discussion with interest.
It might be worth pointing out that there is an ongoing attempt to
classify/ represent evidential links/ weight/ etc. st
I've been lurking & reading the discussion with interest.
It might be worth pointing out that there is an ongoing attempt to
classify/ represent evidential links/ weight/ etc. started in the legal
domain by people such as Wigmore and continued by people such as David
Schum & William Twining.
25 matches
Mail list logo
