A detailed analysis of the Arden Syntax expression grammar

Abstract

ObjectiveThe Arden Syntax for Medical Logic Systems is a standard for encoding and sharing medical knowledge in the form of Medical Logic Modules. To improve accessibility for clinicians, the originators of the standard deliberately designed Arden Syntax expressions to resemble natural language, and parentheses around operands are not generally required. For certain patterns of nested expressions, however, the use of parentheses is mandatory, otherwise they are not accepted by an Arden Syntax environment. In this study, we refer to such patterns as anomalies. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent and the circumstances of such anomalies, and to outline a solution based on an alternative grammar encoding approach. MethodsTo analyze the distribution of anomalies in nested expressions, we developed two custom-made complementary utilities. The first utility, termed parser, checks a single expression pattern against the specification-compliant grammar for syntactic correctness. The second utility, termed composer, automatically creates an extensive amount of expression patterns by permuting and nesting operators without the use of parentheses, and stores these together with the expected syntactic correctness. By means of these utilities we conducted a comprehensive analysis of anomalies by comparing the expected correctness with the actual correctness. Any detected anomalies are stored into a set of files, grouped by the respective top-level operator, for a subsequent analysis. ResultsThe composer utility nested 165 unary, binary, or ternary operators of Arden Syntax version 2.8 to a depth of two, resulting in a set of 76,533 expression patterns, of which 18,978 (24.8%) have been identified as anomalies. An automated assessment of their practical relevance for medical knowledge encoding is infeasible. Manual screening of selected samples indicated that only a small proportion of the detected anomalies would be relevant. The cause of the anomalies lies in the encoding of the grammar. A change of the basic encoding approach with some additional customizations eliminates the anomalies. A working expression parser is included in the supplementary material. ConclusionArden Syntax expressions are affected by anomalies. Since only a small proportion of them have practical relevance and they cannot cause false calculations or clinical decisions, their practical impact is likely limited. However, they may be potential points of confusion for knowledge engineers. An alternative expression grammar, based on a different encoding approach, would not only eliminate the anomalies, but could considerably facilitate both maintenance and further development of the standard.