Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T01:42:01.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Ontologies

Promoting a Shared Scientific Mission

from Part II - Rethinking Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2025

Karen B. Schmaling  and
Robert M. Kaplan
Karen B. Schmaling
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Robert M. Kaplan
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access

Summary

Scientific knowledge is abundant, but this abundance has created challenges. What can be synthesized from the research is limited because of the inconsistent use of terms and classification systems. For example in clinical research, literature reviews, such as meta-analyses, are critical in the development of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations. And the problem is especially acute in the behavioral sciences, where the lack of an agreed-upon classification system for research terms means this knowledge is less likely to be synthesized and interpreted in a manner that can affect clinical care and public policies. This chapter examines the gap between what is known and the capacity to act on that knowledge. We discuss strategies to make research more replicable, better organized, and more easily retrieved.

Keywords

categorizationliteratureontologiesretrievaltaxonomyterminologytheory
Type
Chapter
Information
Rethinking Clinical Research
Methodology and Ethics
 , pp. 232 - 250
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Davis, D. How many scientific papers are published each year? www.mvorganizing.org/how-many-scientific-papers-are-published-each-year/.Google Scholar
Jinha, AE. Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learn Publ. 2010; 23(3):258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornmann, L, Mutz, R. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014; 66(11):2215–2222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, M, Leahey, E, Funk, RJ. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature. 2023; 613(7942):138–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funk, RJ, Owen-Smith, J. A dynamic network measure of technological change. Manag Sci. 2017; 63(3):791–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauper, M, Feroz, A. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. https://protrein.eu/blog/papers-and-patents-are-becoming-less-disruptive-over-time/ Retrieved April 2023; 29:2024.Google Scholar
Van Reenen, J, Bloom, N, Jones, CI, Webb, M. Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find? 2017.Google Scholar
Bloom, N, Jones, CI, Van Reenen, J, Webb, M. Are ideas getting harder to find? Am Econ Rev. 2020; 110(4):1104–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, AS, Kaplan, RM, National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Understanding Ontologies. Ontologies in the Behavioral Sciences: Accelerating Research and the Spread of Knowledge. National Academies Press (US); 2022.Google Scholar
Chorpita, BF, Daleiden, EL, Ebesutani, C, et al. Evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: An updated review of indicators of efficacy and effectiveness. Clin Psychol: Sci Pract. 2011; 18(2):154–172.Google Scholar
Gannon, M. Race is a social construct, scientists argue. Sci Am. 2016; 5:1–11.Google Scholar
Williams, DR, Priest, N, Anderson, NB. Understanding associations among race, socioeconomic status, and health: Patterns and prospects. Health Psychol. 2016; 35(4):407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saenz, M. Federal and State Recognized Tribes. National Conference of State Legislatures. 2024.Google Scholar
Koh, HK, Choi, JK, Caballero, JB. Toward healing and health equity for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations. JAMA. 2021; 326(7):599–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, WD, Ivemark, B. Genetic options: The impact of genetic ancestry testing on consumers’ racial and ethnic identities. Am J Sociol. 2018; 124(1):150–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, O, MacKinnon, DP, Muniz, FB. Extrinsic convergent validity evidence to prevent jingle and jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2021; 56(1):3–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mountjoy, C, Roth, M. Studies in the relationship between depressive disorders and anxiety states: Part 2. Clinical items. J Affect Disord. 1982; 4(2):149–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mischel, W. The toothbrush problem. APS Observer. 2008; 21(11).Google Scholar
Meenan, RF, Mason, JH, Anderson, JJ, Guccione, AA, Kazis, LE. AIMS2. The content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum: Off J Am Coll Rheumatol. 1992; 35(1):1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rector, TS, Cohn, JN. Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: Reliability and validity during a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan. Am Heart J. 1992; 124(4):1017–1025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garin, O, Ferrer, M, Pont, À, et al. Disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires for heart failure: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18(1):71–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Achhab, Y, Nejjari, C, Chikri, M, Lyoussi, B. Disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments among adults diabetic: A systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008; 80(2):171–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montazeri, A. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: A bibliographic review of the literature from 1974 to 2007. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 27(1):1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Assi, L, Chamseddine, F, Ibrahim, P, et al. A global assessment of eye health and quality of life: A systematic review of systematic reviews. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loken, E, Gelman, A. Measurement error and the replication crisis. Science. 2017; 355(6325):584–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mischel, W. Becoming a cumulative science. APS Observer. 2009; 22(1).Google Scholar
Hodos, W, Campbell, CBG. Scala naturae: Why there is no theory in comparative psychology. Psychol Rev. 1969; 76(4):337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, TR. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? Int J Hum Comput Stud. 1995; 43(5–6):907–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, TR. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition. 1993; 5(2):199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Ontologies in the Behavioral Sciences; 2022.Google Scholar
Kaplan, RM, Beatty, AS, on Behavioral B, National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Ontologies in the Behavioral Sciences: Accelerating Research and the Spread of Knowledge. 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, C, Kaplan, RM, Strauman, TJ. The use of ontologies to accelerate the behavioral sciences: Promises and challenges. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2023; 32(5):418–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Y, Zeng, ML. International classification of diseases (ICD). Knowledge Organization. 2023; 49(7):496–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, CS, Feng, MU, Brock, KK, et al. Operational Ontology for Oncology (O3): A professional society-based, multistakeholder, consensus-driven informatics standard supporting clinical and research use of real-world data from patients treated for cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023; 117(3):533–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragoso, G, de Coronado, S, Haber, M, Hartel, F, Wright, L. Overview and utilization of the NCI thesaurus. Comp Funct Genom. 2004; 5(8):648–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubinstein, SM, Yang, PC, Cowan, AJ, Warner, JL. Standardizing chemotherapy regimen nomenclature: A proposal and evaluation of the HemOnc and National Cancer Institute Thesaurus Regimen Content. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020; 4:60–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasilevsky, NA, Matentzoglu, NA, Toro, S, et al. Mondo: Unifying diseases for the world, by the world. medRxiv. 2022:2022.04. 13.22273750.Google Scholar
Michie, S, Fixsen, D, Grimshaw, JM, Eccles, MP. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: The need for a scientific method. Implement Sci. 2009; 16(4):40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. Revision of the International Classification of Diseases.Google Scholar
Chute, C. Key issues in the development of the ICD and its effects on medicine. Vol. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Commissioned Paper.Google Scholar
Evans, SC, Roberts, MC, Guler, J, Keeley, JW, Reed, GM. Taxonomy and utility in the diagnostic classification of mental disorders. J Clin Psychol. 2021; 77(9):1921–1936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, DP. The Freudian Metaphor: Toward Paradigm Change in Psychoanalysis. 1st ed. Norton; 1987:xviii, p. 230.Google Scholar
Reed, GM, Drescher, J, Krueger, RB, et al. Disorders related to sexuality and gender identity in the ICD-11: Revising the ICD-10 classification based on current scientific evidence, best clinical practices, and human rights considerations. World Psychiatry: Off J World Psychiatric Association (WPA). 2016; 15(3):205–221. doi:10.1002/wps.20354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buehler, S. What Every Mental Health Professional Needs to Know About Sex. Springer Publishing Company; 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, DJ, Szatmari, P, Gaebel, W, et al. Mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders in the ICD-11: An international perspective on key changes and controversies. BMC Med. 2020; 18(1):21. doi:10.1186/s12916-020-1495-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robles, R, Fresán, A, Medina-Mora, ME, et al. Categories that should be removed from mental disorders classifications: Perspectives and rationales of clinicians from eight countries. J Clin Psychol. 2015; 71(3):267–281. doi:10.1002/jclp.22145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maercker, A, Reed, GM, Watts, A, Lalor, J, Perkonigg, A. [What do psychologists think about classificatory diagnostics: The WHO-IUPsyS-survey in Germany and Switzerland in preparation for the ICD-11]. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie. 2014; 64(8):315–321. Wie sehen Psychologen die klassifikatorische Diagnostik: WHO-IUPsyS-Survey in Deutschland und der Schweiz zur Vorbereitung der ICD-11. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1370956.Google ScholarPubMed
Dai, Y, Yu, X, Xiao, Z, et al. Comparison of Chinese and international psychiatrists’ views on classification of mental disorders. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry: Off J Pacific Rim College Psychiatrists. 2014; 6(3):267–273. doi:10.1111/appy.12146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, GM. Incorporating Brazilian and Latin American perspectives in the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioral disorders. Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil: 1999). 2011; 33(Suppl 1):S1–S4. doi:10.1590/s1516-44462011000500002.Google ScholarPubMed
Evans, SC, Reed, GM, Roberts, MC, et al. Psychologists’ perspectives on the diagnostic classification of mental disorders: Results from the WHO-IUPsyS Global Survey. Int J Psychol: Journal international de psychologie. 2013; 48(3):177–193. doi:10.1080/00207594.2013.804189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, GM, Mendonça Correia, J, Esparza, P, Saxena, S, Maj, M. The WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ attitudes towards mental disorders classification. World Psychiat: Off J World Psychiatric Association (WPA). 2011; 10(2):118–131. doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00034.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P, Reed, GM, Crawford, MJ. Classification, assessment, prevalence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015; 385(9969):717–726. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61995-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaebel, W, Stricker, J, Riesbeck, M, et al. Accuracy of diagnostic classification and clinical utility assessment of ICD-11 compared to ICD-10 in 10 mental disorders: Findings from a web-based field study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020; 270(3):281–289. doi:10.1007/s00406-019-01076-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linné, Cv, Schröder, J. Genera morborum. apud C. E. Steinert; 1763:32, p. 7.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Ontologies
  • Karen B. Schmaling, Washington State University, Robert M. Kaplan, Stanford University
  • Book: Rethinking Clinical Research
  • Online publication: 13 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009391733.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Ontologies
  • Karen B. Schmaling, Washington State University, Robert M. Kaplan, Stanford University
  • Book: Rethinking Clinical Research
  • Online publication: 13 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009391733.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Ontologies
  • Karen B. Schmaling, Washington State University, Robert M. Kaplan, Stanford University
  • Book: Rethinking Clinical Research
  • Online publication: 13 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009391733.015
Available formats
×