You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In general, when we adopt a classification schema - such as the classic Couinaud subdivision of the liver - we want to adopt it in whole and make efforts for reasonable completeness
We have two "sector" terms populated:
id: UBERON:8600015name: posterior sector of right lobe of liverdef: "The posterior sector of the right lobe of the liver."[PMID:30992874]synonym: "lateral sector of right lobe of liver"EXACT [PMID:24453062]synonym: "liver right lateral lobe"RELATED [https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6443-9376]synonym: "right hepatic posterior sector"EXACT [PMID:30487943]is_a: UBERON:0001062 ! anatomical entityrelationship: part_of UBERON:0001114 ! right lobe of liver
id: UBERON:8600016name: anterior sector of right lobe of liverdef: "The anterior sector of the right lobe of the liver."[PMID:30992874]synonym: "liver right medial lobe"RELATED [https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6443-9376]synonym: "medial sector of right lobe of liver"EXACT [PMID:24453062]synonym: "right hepatic anterior sector"EXACT [PMID:30487943]is_a: UBERON:0001062 ! anatomical entityrelationship: part_of UBERON:0001114 ! right lobe of liver
My rendering as a partonomy (lobe -> section/sector -> segment)
liver
right lobe
right anterior section
segment V
segment VIII
right posterior section
segment VI
segment VII
left lobe
left medial section
segment I (aka caudate lobe)
segment IV
- IVb == quadrate lobe
left lateral section
segment II
segment III
Ideally we would have terms in uberon for lobes, segments, and sectors, and we would populate these consistently. It is a bit challenging to do this though, because in Couinaud the caudate lobe is actually a segment (Segment I). Ideally we would avoid dual asserted classification over this.
We also may want to make these kinds of atlas-level subdivisions species-specific
This is the FMA classification
[] FMA:62955 ! Anatomical entity
[i] FMA:61775 ! Physical anatomical entity
[i] FMA:67165 ! Material anatomical entity
[i] FMA:305751 ! Anatomical structure
[i] FMA:67135 ! Postnatal anatomical structure
[i] FMA:82472 ! Cardinal organ part
[i] FMA:14065 ! Organ component
[i] FMA:82478 ! Lobular organ component
[i] FMA:82494 ! Lobular segment
[i] FMA:14495 ! Lobular segment of liver
[i] FMA:72263 ! Segment of left lobe of liver
[i] FMA:14501 ! Lateral segment of left lobe of liver
[i] FMA:14500 ! Medial segment of left lobe of liver
[i] FMA:15740 ! Hepatovenous sector
[i] FMA:15751 ! Posterior sector of left liver
[i] FMA:15750 ! Anterior sector of left liver
[i] FMA:15749 ! Posterior sector of right liver
[i] FMA:15748 ! Anterior sector of right liver
[i] FMA:15732 ! Dorsal sector of liver
[i] FMA:14496 ! Segment of right lobe of liver
[i] FMA:236862 ! Superior segment of right lobe of liver
[i] FMA:236860 ! Inferior segment of right lobe of liver
[i] FMA:14499 ! Posterior segment of right lobe of liver
[i] FMA:14498 ! Anterior segment of right lobe of liver
This seems largely consistent with Couinaud.
I would recommend adding general groupings for liver sector/section and segment, making it explicit we are following the Couinaud scheme, add mappings to FMA
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
cmungall
changed the title
Consistently populate liver sectors and seg,e
Consistently populate liver sectors and segments
Jul 28, 2024
In general, when we adopt a classification schema - such as the classic Couinaud subdivision of the liver - we want to adopt it in whole and make efforts for reasonable completeness
We have two "sector" terms populated:
This is based on two pubs:
The wikipedia page on segments is also useful
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_segment
My rendering as a partonomy (lobe -> section/sector -> segment)
- IVb == quadrate lobe
Ideally we would have terms in uberon for lobes, segments, and sectors, and we would populate these consistently. It is a bit challenging to do this though, because in Couinaud the caudate lobe is actually a segment (Segment I). Ideally we would avoid dual asserted classification over this.
We also may want to make these kinds of atlas-level subdivisions species-specific
This is the FMA classification
This seems largely consistent with Couinaud.
I would recommend adding general groupings for liver sector/section and segment, making it explicit we are following the Couinaud scheme, add mappings to FMA
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: