PubMed · 14203779
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A PARIS. 1964. [FACIAL NERVE].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14203779/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The objective of this study is to provide an operational definition of principles with which well-formed ontologies should comply. We define 15 such principles, related to classification (e.g., no hierarchical cycles are allowed; concepts have a reasonable number of children), incompatible relationships (e.g., two concepts cannot stand both in a taxonomic and partitive relation), dependence among concepts, and the co-dependence of equivalent sets of relations. Implicit relations--embedded in concept names or inferred from a combination of explicit relations--are used in this process in addition to the relations explicitly represented. As a case study, we investigate the degree to which the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA)--a large ontology of anatomy--complies with these 15 principles. The FMA succeeds in complying with all the principles: totally with one and mostly with the others. Reasons for non-compliance are analyzed and suggestions are made for implementing effective enforcement mechanisms in ontology development environments. The limitations of this study are also discussed.
Although the posterior lymphatic network of the breast has been described at the end of the 18th century, this anatomical entity had been almost forgotten. The observation of an increased visualization of extra-axillary sentinel nodes after image guided intralesional radiocolloid injection in non-palpable breast tumors has focused our attention again on the lymphatics on the posterior surface of the breast.
BACKGROUND: The conception of anatomical entities as a hierarchy of infinitely graduated forms and the increase in the number of observed anatomical sub-entities and structural variables has generated a growing complexity, thus highlighting new properties of organised biological matter. RESULTS: (1) Complexity is so pervasive in the anatomical world that it has come to be considered as a primary characteristic of anatomical systems. (2) Anatomical entities, when viewed at microscopic as well as macroscopic level of observation, show a different degree of complexity. (3) Complexity can reside in the structure of the anatomical system (having many diverse parts with varying interactions or an intricate architecture) or in its behaviour. Often complexity in structure and behaviour go together. (4) Complex systems admit many descriptions (ways of looking at the system) each of which is only partially true. Each way of looking at a complex system requires its own description, its own mode of analysis and its own breaking down of the system in different parts; (5) Almost all the anatomical entities display hierarchical forms: their component structures at different spatial scales or their process at different time scales are related to each other. CONCLUSION: The need to find a new way of observing and measuring anatomical entities, and objectively quantifying their different structural changes, prompted us to investigate the non-Euclidean geometries and the theories of complexity, and to apply their concepts to human anatomy. This attempt has led us to reflect upon the complex significance of the shape of an observed anatomical entity. Its changes have been defined in relation to variations in its status: from a normal (i.e. natural) to a pathological or altered state introducing the concepts of kinematics and dynamics of anatomical forms, speed of their changes, and that of scale of their observation.