Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Reply
Reply to “On Clinical Utility and Systematic
Reporting in Case Studies of Healthcare Process
Mining. Comment on: 10.3390/ijerph17041348
‘Towards the Use of Standardised Terms in Clinical
Case Studies for Process Mining in Healthcare’ ”
Emmanuel Helm 1, 2,* , Anna M. Lin 1, David Baumgartner 1, Alvin C. Lin 3, * and Josef Küng 2
1
Research Department Advanced Information Systems and Technology, University of Applied SciencesUpper
Austria, 4232 Hagenberg, Austria; anna.lin@fh-hagenberg.at (A.M.L.);
david.baumgartner@fh-hagenberg.at (D.B.)
2Institute for Applied Knowledge Processing, Johannes Kepler University, 4040 Linz, Austria;
josef.kueng@jku.at
3Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
*Correspondence: emmanuel.helm@fh-hagenberg.at (E.H.); alvin.lin@mail.utoronto.ca (A.C.L.)
Published: 19 November 2020
Many thanks to Dr. Mordaunt for his thoughtful Comment, which we were delighted to read
with great interest. We would be curious to learn more about under which contexts are standard
clinical descriptors or codes adopted (or not) across different continents and countries. We agree with
the provided examples (on the multiple-meaning acronym of ‘ASD’ and on the different diagnoses
of achondroplasia versus hypochondroplasia) which highlight both the necessity and challenge of
assigning a specific, standard clinical descriptor and code, whichever ontology one chooses. In fact,
it is clear that no current ontology exists whereby all medical terminology are readily assigned with
their own specific clinical descriptor or code. Of note, we do not necessarily advocate strongly for
(or against) any particular standard ontology. Rather, we wish to highlight the importance of and
advocate towards the use of standard clinical descriptors and codes in clinically-relevant case studies
of process mining in healthcare. As such, our proposal template and choice of ontologies is duly noted
as merely a starting point for further discussion and evaluation.
Publisher’s Note:
MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 8583; doi:10.3390/ijerph17228583 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph