-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add "disease or disorder" to COB #226
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Oh boy ... let the games begin :) |
:) I added it to the PR! https://github.com/OBOFoundry/COB/pull/226/files#r1088050803 |
Question: Is the plan to add a term in COB as: I would request to have disease added as a it's own COB term. And the term disorder, if other want it, as it's own distinct term. Thank you, |
@matentzn I think the definition you reference is the source of contention:
This is a definition for disease and begs questions about what is a disorder. A more fruitful approach may be to follow @cmungall suggestion to adopt Schultz' pathological structure. I think it is also reasonable to stipulate that COB uses the term 'disease' in the dispositional sense of the word, and create other terms for other senses of the 'disease' (e.g., disorder). In any case, I fear this conversation will never end. |
+1 to Bill's comment. Adding a single class labeled 'disease or disorder' seems to be straight out favoritism of the MONDO approach and ignores the distinctions between disease and disorder used by OGMS and related ontologies like the Infectious Disease Ontology and DO. Might be better to keep 'disease', 'disorder', and 'disease or disorder' out of COB rather than alienate folks using alternative approaches, particularly if COB becomes a requirement for OBO Foundry membership. |
+1 to Bill and Alex
…On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:45 AM Alexander Diehl ***@***.***> wrote:
+1 to Bill's comment. Adding a single class labeled 'disease or disorder'
seems to be straight out favoritism of the MONDO approach and ignores the
distinctions between disease and disorder used by OGMS and related
ontologies like the Infectious Disease Ontology and even DO. Might be
better to keep 'disease', 'disorder', and 'disease or disorder' out of COB
rather than alienate folks using alternative approaches, particularly if
COB becomes a requirement for OBO Foundry membership.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#226 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJR55TADHX72OBY65LSIY3WUKS3PANCNFSM6AAAAAAUHU7UZQ>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Consesus of usage is to use the label: disease
Defintion: I am open to further review/revision.
Usage of the term 'disorder', in disease nomenclature, has often been used across research/clinical communities interchangeably with disease, e.g. mental health disorder, platelet-type bleeding disorder, intellectual developmental disorder.
To address, what does the 'concept' of 'disorder' mean:
Clinically, a disorder precedes a disease, and is a congenital condition.
That is to say, it is present at birth.
In the DO we define 'physical disorder' as : A disease that has_material_basis_in a genetic abnormality, error with embryonic development, infection or compromised intrauterine environment.
I think we need both terms; 'disease' and 'disorder' in COB.
OGMS disorder: A material entity which is clinically abnormal and part of
an extended organism. Disorders are the physical basis of disease.
Disease is used too widely utilized not to enable it's inclusion in the OBO
Foundry membership.
…On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:45 AM Alexander Diehl ***@***.***> wrote:
+1 to Bill's comment. Adding a single class labeled 'disease or disorder'
seems to be straight out favoritism of the MONDO approach and ignores the
distinctions between disease and disorder used by OGMS and related
ontologies like the Infectious Disease Ontology and even DO. Might be
better to keep 'disease', 'disorder', and 'disease or disorder' out of COB
rather than alienate folks using alternative approaches, particularly if
COB becomes a requirement for OBO Foundry membership.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#226 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DMWLEO4G6WL53TZQN3WUKS3NANCNFSM6AAAAAAUHU7UZQ>
.
You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
the label *disease *is used in the following ontologies:
Disease Ontology (DOID), EFO, OMIT, SIO, OGMS, ADO, AGRO, APOLLO_SV, CCO,
CIDO, CTO, GENEPIO, GeXO, HTN, IDO, IDO-COVID-19, MFNO, MFOMD, OAE, OBI,
OBIB, OHD, OHPI, OMIABIS, ONE, ONS, OPMI, PLANP, RO, ReTO, ReXO, VIDO, VO,
Orphanet, GSSO, MI, BAO, ExO
Disease or Disorder
is used by:
NCIT, MONDO
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:58 AM Lynn Schriml ***@***.***>
wrote:
… I think we need both terms; 'disease' and 'disorder' in COB.
OGMS disorder: A material entity which is clinically abnormal and part of
an extended organism. Disorders are the physical basis of disease.
Disease is used too widely utilized not to enable it's inclusion in the
OBO Foundry membership.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:45 AM Alexander Diehl ***@***.***>
wrote:
> +1 to Bill's comment. Adding a single class labeled 'disease or disorder'
> seems to be straight out favoritism of the MONDO approach and ignores the
> distinctions between disease and disorder used by OGMS and related
> ontologies like the Infectious Disease Ontology and even DO. Might be
> better to keep 'disease', 'disorder', and 'disease or disorder' out of COB
> rather than alienate folks using alternative approaches, particularly if
> COB becomes a requirement for OBO Foundry membership.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#226 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DMWLEO4G6WL53TZQN3WUKS3NANCNFSM6AAAAAAUHU7UZQ>
> .
> You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
"Mondo favouritism" is a great accusation to start a discussion with if you want it to finish quickly! In Mondo, it was decided to treat disease and disorder synonymous - which means Mondo classes will never be aligned with COB if we separate the two. COB is explicitly not supposed to be BFO. The point is to create categories that are useful for biology / biomedical domain. Schulz conflation won't solve the disease vs disorder debate. The matter of fact is: mondo, ncit, ogms, doid and all other interpretations of "disease" can go under "diease or disorder". Mondo and NCIT cant align with a dual "disease" ... "disorder" solution. EDIT: I am NOT the right person to have this discussion. I only care about one thing: the success of OBO and the unification of OBO ontologies. |
I don't see how doid and all other interpretations of "disease" can go
under "disease or disorder"
Looking at the mondo term, disease or disorder, it is defined as:
A disease is a disposition to undergo pathological processes that exists in
an organism because of one or more disorders in that organism. [ OGMS :
0000031 ]
…-- so the label is 'disease or disorder', but the definition is of a
'disease'
-- OGMS:0000031 is 'disease'
so why then, couldn't mondo's 'disease or disorder' fit in a COB disease
term ?
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 12:14 PM Nico Matentzoglu ***@***.***> wrote:
"Mondo favouritism" is a great accusation to start a ticket with if you
want this ticket to finish quickly!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#226 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DNZE3TBD3ICYBBAU3LWUKWFTANCNFSM6AAAAAAUHU7UZQ>
.
You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
If "disorder" is used as a synonym for disease, then add "disorder" as an alternate term. I believe the objection is that it's important to keep a distinction between disease and disorder, whatever they are called. Offering the disjunctive class will encourage its use, and then uses of it will mean one can't make the distinction. |
Can you elaborate @lschriml? the idea here is to create a conjunctive class that conflates the concepts of disease or disorder. Disease is a subclass of Disease or Disorder, so is "Disorder". This term can encapsulate all interpretations of disease/disorder, including "disease as a disposition" or "disease as a material entity". In any case, remember the point of COB: have a useful upper level - not a BFO conformant one. Now here is the crux I think: we may have different definitions of useful. For me it is: integrate all OBO ontologies into a reasonable knowledge graph that can be used, for example, to group genetic mechanisms for disease, or phenotypic profiles associated with them and provide background knowledge for AI systems of the future. This is a large scale, pretty dirty affair - unless you believe that everyone curating this kind of data (GWAS?) is thinking about the fine distinctions between disease and disorder. Or worse NLP: how will an NLP process ever understand whether a paper is talking about a disorder or a disease? Reality (biocuration, NLP) is dirty - if we insist cleaning it up BFO-style, we will never integrate our data, we will never build the grand OBO biomedical KG, and we will slowly fade into irrelevance, seeding ever more of our hard-earned knowledge into the abyss of neural networks with 1000 of layers and no way for us (as humanity) to even begin to grasp what's happening. It's our role as OBO to represent the Human side of the upcoming AI revolution, and hackling about fine-grained ontological distinctions will simply prevent us from being integrated into the AI stack that is being built right now. |
+ 1 Alan's recommendation: add "disorder" as an alternate term to 'disease'
@nico Matentzoglu ***@***.***>
-- It is not an OR situation, disorders, in disease nomenclature are a
type of disease
Naming of diseases:
There is a long history here.
Disorder has long been used synonymously (to disease)
to name many types of diseases.
e.g. mental health disorder
-- Clinicians are and do think about the fine distinctions between
disease and disorder.
- they consider the distinctions, as that drives the
diagnosis and treatment, due to the
cause (genetic mutation/environmental
driver) and the timing of what went wrong
(stage of development)
- physical disorders (e.g. orofacial cleft, spina
bifida) are congenital diseases - that are
present at birth - this is how 'disorder' is
defined in the genetic/clinical world.
…-- how will an NLP process ever understand whether a paper is talking
about a disorder or a disease?
- NLP will be supported by utilizing the proper disease
nomenclature - that is the proper disease names.
- These are the names and language defined by the
research disciplines.
The names and their direct parents will be most useful
for NLP.
This will tell them the etiology of the disease.
Cheers,
Lynn
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:55 AM Nico Matentzoglu ***@***.***> wrote:
I don't see how doid and all other interpretations of "disease" can go
under "disease or disorder
Can you elaborate @lschriml <https://github.com/lschriml>? the idea here
is to create a conjunctive class that *conflates* the concepts of disease
or disorder. Disease is a subclass of Disease or Disorder, so is
"Disorder". This term can encapsulate all interpretations of
disease/disorder, including "disease as a disposition" or "disease as a
material entity". In any case, remember the point of COB: have a *useful*
upper level - not a BFO conformant one. Now here is the crux I think: we
may have different definitions of useful. For me it is: integrate all OBO
ontologies into a reasonable knowledge graph that can be used, for example,
to group genetic mechanisms for disease, or phenotypic profiles associated
with them and provide background knowledge for AI systems of the future.
This is a large scale, pretty dirty affair - unless you believe that
everyone curating this kind of data (GWAS?) is thinking about the fine
distinctions between disease and disorder. Or worse NLP: how will an NLP
process ever understand whether a paper is talking about a disorder or a
disease? Reality (biocuration, NLP) is dirty - if we insist cleaning it up
BFO-style, we will never integrate our data, we will never build the grand
OBO biomedical KG, and we will slowly fade into irrelevance, seeding ever
more of our hard-earned knowledge into the abyss of neural networks with
1000 of layers and no way for us (as humanity) to even begin to grasp
what's happening. It's our role as OBO to represent the Human side of the
upcoming AI revolution, and hackling about fine-grained ontological
distinctions will simply prevent us from being integrated into the AI stack
that is being built right now.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#226 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DPNMBXCECHWUYG2R6TWUOSRRANCNFSM6AAAAAAUHU7UZQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
+1 to Bill and Alex I am OK with Alan's recommendation: add "disorder" as an alternate term to 'disease' |
Disorder is a type of disease? I guess if that is true, than we can solve this problem here by just renaming the class to |
@matentzn The suggestion isn't that disorder is a kind of disease. The definitions are primary. If someone wants to use the word disorder to mean what the disease definition says, that's ok, and that's what my proposal was about. There would still be a class disorder whose primary label will remain disorder. It would be a mistake to put a bona fide disorder as defined as a subclass of disease. |
While I disagree, can we make a suggestion that allows us to define a single term that encapsulates all ontologies including DO, Mondo and NCIT? Something sane we can use as a parent class. |
I think it would really helpful if a definition can be provided for |
@matentzn This is what I am asking for. A definition for such a term has yet to be provided. |
FWIW: NCIT also has a top-level Disease, Disorder, or Finding class. Do you wish to conflate findings too? |
You know me @wdduncan i have zero interest in defining things and a huge passion for integrating things that are defined in incompatible ways - I don't know what I want other than to start using COB and putting a domain on “disease has feature” relationship in RO (and all the other disease relations). I neither know what a disease is, not what a finding is; I just need a class to do my work of building the OBO knowledge graph. |
Clinical abnormality as term name? I'll leave the definition to the experts. |
I'd like us to consider the approach raised by @cmungall described in Schulz et al. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 2011. @matentzn indicated above that the “Schulz conflation’ won’t work but it's not clear to me why it wouldn't. If that approach works it has the.benefit of the work done to relate to SNOMED (described in the paper) and potentially offer an approach for addressing phenotypic abnormality and perhaps phenotypes in general. |
In order to make progress on COB, could we all agree to add the two terms (1) disease and (2) disorder to COB. |
It sounds good to me. |
I am against doing this, sorry. It means creating a solution that does not work for Mondo and make it impossible to negotiate a solution later on that does. Sorry! |
I'm very confused. As I pointed out, MONDO only /calls/ the term 'disease or disorder'. The definition is that of disease as given in OGMS. Adding 'disease or disorder', defined as 'disease' or 'disorder' doesn't help MONDO AFAICT. |
The definition does not reflect practice and I asked the Mondo team to remove or revise it. it does not reflect the current interpretation. Mondo does not distinguish between disease or disorder, the two concepts are conflated in the Mondo view of the world! They even met this week with a few medical experts to discuss this issue and the decision remains: while a small difference between disease and disorder seems to have been acknowledged conceptually, for pragmatic reason they are treated as synymous/conflated. |
In that, case, once the definition is revised, which should be preliminary, the presence of disease and disorder in COB will allow then to completely define disease or disorder in MONDO. There is no need to have the disjunction in COB. It's a defined class. |
I had 5 people sending me emails and messages to recommend to change a bit how I communicate here, but right now, I need time to retreat and formulate a new way to argue this case. I will have to look also at @cstoeckert and @addiehl proposals a bit more. Also, it seems like my position is not understood at all (what you are suggesting does not solve my problem - I need 1 named class to be able to query all diseases and disorders at once), so I probably need to make some pictures and organise an in-person meeting to solve this issue! I cannot agree to adding the strict disease/disorder distinctions proposed here. |
Ok. Regroup. I'm game when you've organized your thoughts. |
Argument for a named class that captures Mondo and DO definitions.Note: This is not an argument for or against any particular definition, just establishing the need for a named class that captures the Mondo and DO viewpoints. We still need to think about how best to achieve a minimal model that makes everyone happy. Just because I am at the airport, let's start with my motivation, not the modelling now. Use case 1: queryingHow would you write this query without a sane grouping? Use case 2: Sane domains and rangesI am assuming here we don't want all our relations to have a disjunctive expression as a domain, because this will cause problems for lower expressivity ontologies, and create a big overhead maintaining properties. Use case 3: COB alignment as a strategic goal of the OBO FoundryUsing disjunctive expressions for alignment purposes will simply make the purpose of this effort nil. |
For what it is worth, I wish we would explore the so-called Schultz approach (mentioned multiple times) a bit more instead of going back and forth endlessly about disease/disorder. Or, we should use different labels so that we don't continue arguing about which senses of 'disease' or 'disorder' are correct, and whether it is best to conflate the two. But since those options have not garnered a lot of interest, I think the best option is to logically define I realize there are drawbacks to this:
As for (1), there are (based on @matentzn comments) are a fair number of professionals who are not bothered by the conflation. We should respect that. I would, however, be concerned if more of the conflated subclasses from MONDO wanted to be entered into COB. This could impose the conflation between disease and disorder on those of us who need to clearly disambiguate between diseases (as dispositions) and disorders (as material entities). I have worked with researchers in the domains of cancer and dentistry that were quite concerned with being clear about these distinctions. As for (2), I'm not seeing why this is an alarming concern. Sure ... it is possible, but whether it actually happens is a different matter. There is nothing to stop other OBO ontologies from doing this within their own domains, but we don't find them. |
The label aspect is one I thought might be the problem, hence why I suggested a different one. |
For what it is worth: I am with Chris Stoeckert spelled out comment on how to re-label and align these 'pathological classes' based on the Schultz approach (It is SCHULTZ, not SHULTZ - we are talking real Germans here). That approach also allows people like myself that want to try to fit specific terms into the lowe level buckets as much as possible. But gives room to integrate MONDO. |
Yes. Thanks for pointing that out ... I corrected my misspellings. I noted the Schultz approach (here) as an avenue to explore (not necessarily to commit to) for finding a middle ground between OGMS/DO and MONDO positions. While I am happy to see that @cstoeckert and @bpeters42 support this, I fear that the proposal to map COB to Biotop classes will (yet) create more arguments. This is something that needs to be considered as well. To be honest, I don't see a perfect solution here. Each side has advocates that are unwilling to budge. Unfortunately, I fear my efforts have failed. I am planning to attend to disease/disorder call. Until each side starts seriously thinking about solutions that don't require jettisoning the other, I have strong doubts that anything will result from the call. In other words, if the call only amounts to each side saying why they are right and the other side is wrong, this debate will just continue. |
I think the real problem here is the overlap of MONDO and DO and lack of a unified plan for how the Foundry will deal with pathology. Objection to the change stems from the feeling that we would be cementing in the current dysfunction with no path towards resolving the elephant in the room. I don't think anyone thinks that the Schulz/OGMS distinctions, sans disjunction, are bad distinctions or difficult to distinguish. I think that I would not have objections to the addition of the disjunctive term if there was a commitment to a) resolve the redundancy between DO and MONDO and b) commit to, in the longer term, refining terms to be in the more specific class. If there's some way to shift the conversation in that direction, we should attempt it. If you agree this is a plausible way forward, perhaps we could craft a message together to shift the conversation. Absent that, I don't think I would support going forward with the change, and would instead modify the dictum that every ontology had terms directly below a COB term to be instead that every ontology be under a term fully defined in terms of the COB terms. That would allow for disease or disorder to still be conformant, but stay in MONDO. In speaking with Barry it was his suggestion that regardless of this issue, there should be the ability root under defined classes based on the COB terms. |
My recollection is that early discussions touched on the issue of 'this or that' (defined class) terms, and that it was decided they would NOT be in COB. This of course would not work for those ontologies that make use of such terms at the very top levels but, again, this was previously viewed as okay. |
Where can I catch up on the result of the special meeting on "disease or disorder"? |
I wish I could point you to the new consensus that emerged. That didn't
happen, and wasn't the point of the meeting. We did succeed in pointing out
much more clearly what different people are meaning and intending when they
use the terms, and there was a general much more positive spirit.
If I were to summarize here what I think we agreed upon, I will likely not
capture everything accurately. So apologies in advance.
- disease is a term that everyone uses and wants. It should be a
characteristic of an individual organism, and it should be tied to a
disease course (process in which the disease manifests or not).
- 'disorder' as a term needs to be avoided at all costs, as people have
very different understandings what it means (a subclass of diseases or a
physical property or a general abnormality). A very large part of the
discussion focusessed *again* on different understandings of the term. So
we really need to drop it.
- 'physical abnormality' would be a potential term that can capture the
underlying material properties that can be causative for diseases - like
infections, genetic mutations, injuries, oversensitized immune system. That
would be OGMS:disorder - but avoiding 'disorder' as a label.
I should have summarized this right after the call, and I am likely
forgetting things. And not everyone was extremely happy. But it seemed like
the above would be a way to move forward in the spirit of COB to nail down
better what we even mean, and expose differences in our understanding.
- Bjoern
…On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:13 PM Damion Dooley ***@***.***> wrote:
Where can I catch up on the result of the special meeting on "disease or
disorder"?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#226 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJX2IRBQXGTJMORLYCJ4R3W5S4H7ANCNFSM6AAAAAAUHU7UZQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Bjoern Peters
Professor
La Jolla Institute for Immunology
9420 Athena Circle
La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
Tel: 858/752-6914
Fax: 858/752-6987
http://www.liai.org/pages/faculty-peters
|
I am afraid someone will need to dedicate some serious time to shepherd this issue forward. One option is to recruit a volunteer to OBO Ops whose sole responsibility is to mediate a solution, summarise the current situation from time to time and make a strategy? |
Would you have a volunteer in mind? If so, I would love that solution. |
There are a few people I could imagine doing this (Role: COB mediator - a person whose role is the mediation of modelling disputes on the COB issue tracker). The problem is that the most suitable people are the ones that already have a very full plate. For me the key ingredients of a mediator are:
A few people I think of that would fit the bill above:
We could reach out to them 1 by 1, or we could propose the role on OBO level and see if people volunteer that I have not thought of yet. |
What does it mean for an ontology to be "semantically uncommitted"? |
All root classes are subclasses of BFO:entity seems quite uncommitted wrt TLO, compared to using very specific BFO distinctions. The same logic would apply to COB. |
I just wanted to add to the comment from Nico regarding semantic commitment: Most high-level COB classes are BFO classes or children thereof. We have some problem cases (like here: disease/disorder) where there is disagreement on the placement. But we are working towards trying to resolve that. In the meantime, we accept these uncommitted classes in order to make OBO ontologies interoperable as best we can - which is the primary goal for COB. |
I appreciate the desire to add disease and disorder to COB. I didn't attend the last meeting on this (April?) but I was under the impression that it had been decided in that meeting that these two terms would be added (using the OGMS definitions? not sure about specifics). What else, if anything, needs to be done? I apologize for the long delay between this and previous responses. |
Addresses #19
Ludi Incipiant.