1

Question about

So I'm looking for an ontology (RDF/OWL) of potential conflicts of interest in medical research; and thought MedScience might be the most appropriate SE (but not sure). While it's research-related, it could already be a bit too programming-adjacent, and it's a find-me-the-right-resource question of sorts.

Motivation:
Notably my origin interest is about a field only peripherally related to the medical realm, namely public health and tobacco control (→in parts faux public health). Albeit with overlap in research methodologies and study formats. And often unacknowledged COIs (classification varies wildly between journals) I'd think are applicable across the board - including the very philosophical debate about how much disclosure is desirable. And I'm assuming there's similar overlap with potential domain priors or implicit biases in other clinical explorations; if any such ontology were to cover those as well.

Scope::
So what I'm hoping to get out of the question is a reference relating to the OBO foundries', or from the OLS thingy. I've seen traces of e.g. financial- or personal-stake denominations scattered elsewhere. But I'd be surprised if there wasn't a compendium ontology already. Just can't pinpoint it myself. Kinda shocked that it's such a vast topic nowadays.

Yet what I'm not looking forward is another flowtext paper, or shallow enumerations (da journals).

So, would this be on-topic here? Or perhaps Academia.SE be a better bet? (Might be even more fringe there.)

7
  • This comment makes me suspect you aren't very familiar with Medical Sciences.SE: While it's research-related, it could already be a bit too programming-centered. It's not programming-centered at all. Programming questions are entirely off topic. Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 0:49
  • Hence the caveat. Albeit I should clarify, wouldn't be an actual programming question here of course. Just topical to point out RDF/OWL as probable/desired outcome. (Implying the secondary use.) Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 2:22
  • I wouldn't expect physicians and other medical professionals to know acronyms like RDF and OWL. Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 2:34
  • Yes, that's probably the crux here. Even "ontology" or "vocabulary" might already be too fringe a research topic. Wasn't sure if the biomed dictionaries would ring anyones bell. And if such a question would end up a tumbleweed, it's probably off-topic (specifically for a beta site). Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 2:43
  • Ignore my first comment. I guess I misinterpreted "it's" in the sentence I quoted to refer to this group rather than the subject matter. But either way I don't think it's on topic here. Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 14:48
  • @CareyGregory Thanks! If it's already beyond the usual question scope and (more importanly) general interest, then I'll see if it'll fit elsewhere. (Not sure, perhaps Academia given the self-disclosure aspects.) Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 16:11
  • 1
    I think Academia is your best bet. Just post this question in their meta and find out. Commented Sep 3, 2022 at 17:42

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.