What is the abdomen? Rationalising clinical and anatomical perspectives using formal semantics

Abstract

The meaning of the term ‘abdomen’ has become increasingly ambiguous, as it has to satisfy the contemporary requirements of natural language discourse, literature, gross and radiological anatomy and its role in ontologies supporting electronic records and data modelling. It is critical that there is an agreed understanding of the semantics of the abdominopelvic cavity, its component volumes including the abdomen proper, true and false pelvic cavities, and its boundaries and regional contents. The expression of part–whole (meronymic) relationships is essential for inferences to be drawn by computer algorithms, but unless these are rigorously reviewed and tested incorrect assumptions are drawn. The SNOMED CT terminology descriptions and hierarchy of anatomical concepts relating to the trunk were scrutinised for ambiguity and sub‐optimal relationships using a panel of reference sources. Any identified errors were corrected and the impact of any changes reviewed iteratively by evaluating their effect on dependant hierarchies (modelled with the associated anatomical concepts). Anatomical concepts are generally structured according to a traditional gross standpoint, but in clinical practice covert complex regional notions are frequently used and during the evaluation process a new viewpoint relating to projectional (transmissive) or emissive radiological perspective was identified. The subtle but important differences in the boundaries, volumes and contents of these distinctive perspectives of the ‘abdomen’ are presented. Three significant complex variants have been identified which relate to the most common uses of the word ‘abdomen’. The merits and disadvantages of using ‘abdomen’ as common synonym to more than one concept (polysemy) are briefly discussed and the solution adopted by SNOMED International described. The review of existing ontologies and academic literature confirmed the frequent varied use of the word ‘abdomen’, which raises concerns when derived data are increasingly being used remotely from the point of clinical contact, potentially leading to incorrect inferences. The documented regional truncal volumes from an anatomical regional, segmental and cross‐sectional perspective have been integrated into a logical and comprehensive model suitable for computer processing. The robust modelling of meronymic hierarchies has to be rigorous to avoid systematic errors and it is thus timely that a proposed standard description of these subtly related volumes and structures is made available for discussion and comment.