Ontological Classifications and Human Rationality in Bioethics

Romanyshyn, Alexandra T.

doi:10.1093/jmp/jhz011

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, dimensional definitions of psychopathology, such as those implied by the AMPD and that we further here, will also be plagued by vagueness, particularly because nonarbitrary cutoff points between normal and abnormal functioning are unlikely to emerge in any well-defined fashion [80]. Instead, any threshold is likely to be located in a region of transition that does not solve but merely circumvents the issue [81]. In analogy to the sorites paradox, where it is difficult to determine when successively smaller piles of sand may be called heaps, in personality pathology comparable but weaker gradual transitions on dimensions may still produce clinically relevant impairment.…”

Section: Integrating Structure and Function In Conceptualizing And Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What becomes evident is that not all difficulties (e.g., nonbinary distributions, excessive comorbidity, and diagnostic heterogeneity) emerge from formalization of personality disorders. By default, there is uncertainty in the experience of distress, impairment, or personal functioning, in developing a disorder, and in becoming a heap [81]. The important thing is to realize that any threshold defined by clinical necessity (just like hypertension) is not the disorder but a practical decision guided by normative considerations.…”

Section: Integrating Structure and Function In Conceptualizing And Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If, however, you repeat this enough times, there will only be scattered grains of sand left. It will still be considered as a heap because the removal of no single grain of sand could determine whether or not something is a heap [81].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Integrating Structure and Function in Conceptualizing and Assessing Pathological Traits

Wright

Kaurin²

2020

Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (5th Edition) Alternative Model of Personality Disorders includes a dimensional trait model to describe individual differences in the manifestation of personality pathology. Empirically derived quantitative trait models of psychopathology address many of the structural problems of classical diagnostic schemes (e.g., nonbinary distributions, excessive comorbidity, and diagnostic heterogeneity). However, they are largely based on the structure of individual differences in the manifestation of psychopathology. In contrast, clinical theories of personality disorder, which are the foundation of intervention efforts, are based on the function of maladaptive behavior. This distinction is akin to the difference between morphology and physiology in the broader biological sciences. A structure-function divide in the focus of empirical and clinical work contributes to a lack of integration and difficulties with translation. Here we discuss this tension and argue for the need to bridge this divide and adopt research efforts that integrate structure and function of personality traits. Specifically, we suggest that between-person structure identifies the principal domains of functioning, but to understand dysfunction personality must be conceptualized and studied as an ensemble of contextualized dynamic processes.

show abstract

Section: Integrating Structure and Function In Conceptualizing And Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Integrating Structure and Function In Conceptualizing And Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating Structure and Function in Conceptualizing and Assessing Pathological Traits

Wright

Kaurin²

2020

Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The bioethics literature reports on few limited ontological attempts to conceptualize the bioethics domain with limited scope representativeness (3). In addition to a lack of a robust methodological approach in driving the research design and evaluation of resultant bioethics ontologies, the literature does not report on the existence of bioethics ontologies in pandemics and more specifically for COVID-19.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

iOntoBioethics: A Framework for the Agile Development of Bioethics Ontologies in Pandemics, Applied to COVID-19

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Few ontological attempts have been reported for conceptualizing the bioethics domain. In addition to limited scope representativeness and lack of robust methodological approaches in driving research design and evaluation of bioethics ontologies, no bioethics ontologies exist for pandemics and COVID-19. This research attempted to investigate whether studying the bioethics research literature, from the inception of bioethics research publications, facilitates developing highly agile, and representative computational bioethics ontology as a foundation for the automatic governance of bioethics processes in general and the COVID-19 pandemic in particular.Research Design: The iOntoBioethics agile research framework adopted the Design Science Research Methodology. Using systematic literature mapping, the search space resulted in 26,170 Scopus indexed bioethics articles, published since 1971. iOntoBioethics underwent two distinctive stages: (1) Manually Constructing Bioethics (MCB) ontology from selected bioethics sources, and (2) Automatically generating bioethics ontological topic models with all 26,170 sources and using special-purpose developed Text Mining and Machine-Learning (TM&ML) engine. Bioethics domain experts validated these ontologies, and further extended to construct and validate the Bioethics COVID-19 Pandemic Ontology.Results: Cross-validation of the MCB and TM&ML bioethics ontologies confirmed that the latter provided higher-level abstraction for bioethics entities with well-structured bioethics ontology class hierarchy compared to the MCB ontology. However, both bioethics ontologies were found to complement each other forming a highly comprehensive Bioethics Ontology with around 700 concepts and associations COVID-19 inclusive.Conclusion:The iOntoBioethics framework yielded the first agile, semi-automatically generated, literature-based, and domain experts validated General Bioethics and Bioethics Pandemic Ontologies Operable in COVID-19 context with readiness for automatic governance of bioethics processes. These ontologies will be regularly and semi-automatically enriched as iOntoBioethics is proposed as an open platform for scientific and healthcare communities, in their infancy COVID-19 learning stage. iOntoBioethics not only it contributes to better understanding of bioethics processes, but also serves as a bridge linking these processes to healthcare systems. Such big data analytics platform has the potential to automatically inform bioethics governance adherence given the plethora of developing bioethics and COVID-19 pandemic knowledge. Finally, iOntoBioethics contributes toward setting the first building block for forming the field of “Bioethics Informatics”.

show abstract

Ontological Classifications and Human Rationality in Bioethics

Cited by 2 publications

References 27 publications

Integrating Structure and Function in Conceptualizing and Assessing Pathological Traits

Integrating Structure and Function in Conceptualizing and Assessing Pathological Traits

iOntoBioethics: A Framework for the Agile Development of Bioethics Ontologies in Pandemics, Applied to COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About