Reasoning based quality assurance of medical ontologies: a case study

The World Health Organisation is using OWL as a key technology to develop ICD-11 - the next version of the well-known International Classification of Diseases. Besides providing better opportunities for data integration and linkages to other well-known ontologies such as SNOMED-CT, one of the main promises of using OWL is that it will enable various forms of automated error checking. In this paper we investigate how automated OWL reasoning, along with a Justification Finding Service can be used as a Quality Assurance technique for the development of large and complex ontologies such as ICD-11. Using the International Classification of Traditional Medicine (ICTM) - Chapter 24 of ICD-11 - as a case study, and an expert panel of knowledge engineers, we reveal the kinds of problems that can occur, how they can be detected, and how they can be fixed. Specifically, we found that a logically inconsistent version of the ICTM ontology could be repaired using justifications (minimal entailing subsets of an ontology). Although over 600 justifications for the inconsistency were initially computed, we found that there were three main manageable patterns or categories of justifications involving TBox and ABox axioms. These categories represented meaningful domain errors to an expert panel of ICTM project knowledge engineers, who were able to use them to successfully determine the axioms that needed to be revised in order to fix the problem. All members of the expert panel agreed that the approach was useful for debugging and ensuring the quality of ICTM.