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.

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.

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.)

  • 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.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    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.)
    – mario
    Sep 3, 2022 at 2:22
  • I wouldn't expect physicians and other medical professionals to know acronyms like RDF and OWL.
    – Bryan Krause Mod
    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).
    – mario
    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.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    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.)
    – mario
    Sep 3, 2022 at 16:11
  • 1
    I think Academia is your best bet. Just post this question in their meta and find out.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    Sep 3, 2022 at 17:42


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .