Anatomic adjectival forms

In anatomy, most nouns have a corresponding adjective. In medicine, the adjectival forms are not always derived from the same root as the noun form.

Doctors don't usually refer to stomach flu, when they can use a term like gastric flu.

Likewise, the adjective for finger is not finger-like or fingy; it's digital. Speaking of "digital," medical software developers who work in natural language processing, need to have lists of the adjectival forms of anatomic nouns. I prepared the following computer-parsable list for my own use. I thought that others working in the field of medical informatics may have a use for these terms. If you have additional terms to add, please submit them as a comment to this posting.

As with all the documents and software I provide, the following
disclaimer holds:

The data list is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind,
express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties
of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and
noninfringement. in no event shall the authors or copyright
holders be liable for any claim, damages or other liability,
whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising
from, out of or in connection with the data list or the use or
other dealings in the data list.

The data list, created by Jules J. Berman, on June 5, 2010, is
donated to the Public Domain.

abdomen <=> abdominal
adenohypophysis <=> adenohypophyseal
adnexa <=> adnexal
adnexae <=> adnexal
alveolus <=> alveolar
amygdala <=> amygdaloid
anatomy <=> anatomic or anatomical
antecubitus <=> antecubital
antrum <=> antral
anus <=> anal
aorta <=> aortic or aortal
appendix <=> appendiceal
arm <=> brachial
artery <=> arterial
aryepiglottis <=> aryepiglottic
atrium <=> atrial
bladder (urinary bladder or vesica) <=> vesical
bone <=> osseous
brachium <=> brachial
bronchus <=> bronchial
caecum <=> caecal
calf <=> sural
callosum <=> callosal
cecum <=> cecal
cerebrum <=> cerebral
cervix <=> cervical
clitoris <=> clitoral
cloaca <=> cloacal
coelom <=> coelomic
colon <=> colonic
commissure <=> commissural
cranium <=> cranial
cuticle <=> cuticular
cutis <=> cutaneous
cytology <=> cytologic or cytological
decidua <=> decidual
dermis <=> dermal
diaphragm <=> diaphragmatic
digit <=> digital
dorsum <=> dorsal
duct <=> ductal
duodenum <=> duodenal
dura <=> dural
ear <=> aural
embryo <=> embryonic or embryonal
endocervix <=> endocervical
endometrium <=> endometrial or endometrioid
endothelium <=> endothelial
epicanthus <=> epicanthal or epicanthic
epicardium <=> epicardial
epidermis <=> epidermal or epidermic
epiglottis <=> epiglottal or epiglottic
epithelium <=> epithelial
esophagus <=> esophageal
ethmoid <=> ethmoidal
eye <=> ocular
face <=> facial
faeces <=> faecal
fascia <=> fascial
feces <=> fecal
fetus <=> fetal
finger or toe<=> digital
fibula <=> fibular
focus <=> focal
foetus <=> foetal
foot <=> pedal
forearm or elbow <=> cubital
front <=> frontal
gestation <=> gestational
gland <=> glandular
globe <=> global
glottis <=> glottal or glottic
gluteus <=> gluteal
gonad <=> gonadal
gyrus<=> gyral
haemorrhoid <=> haemorrhoidal
hallux (big toe) <=> hallucal
ham (back of knee) <=> popliteal
heart <=> cardiac or myocardial
hemorrhoid <=> hemorrhoidal
hepatocyte <=> hepatocellular
hernia <=> hernial
hiatus <=> hiatal
histiocyte <=> histiocytic
histology <=> histologic or histological
hypophysis <=> hypophyseal
ileum <=> ileac or ileal (intestine)
ilium <=> iliac or ilial (bone)
intestine <=> intestinal or enteric or enteral
ischium <=> ischial
jejunum <=> jejunal
kidney <=> renal or nephric or nephroid
labium <=> labial
larynx <=> laryngeal
leg <=> crural
leukocyte <=> leukocytic
liver <=> hepatic
lumen <=> luminal
lung <=> pulmonary or pulmonic
lymph <=> lymphatic or lymphoid
megakaryocyte <=> megakaryocytic
meninges <=> meningeal
metaphysis <=> metaphyseal
monocyte <=> monocytic or monocytoid
mouth or os<=> oral
mucus <=> mucous
myocardium <=> myocardial
myometrium <=> myometrial
neck <=> nuchal or cervical
node <=> nodal
nose <=> nasal
oesophagus <=> oesophageal
omentum <=> omental
orbit <=> orbital
os <=> oral
ovaries <=> ovarian
ovary <=> ovarian
pallidus <=> pallidal
pancreas <=> pancreatic
pathologic <=> pathologic or pathological
pelvis <=> pelvic
penis <=> penile
pericardium <=> pericardial
peritoneum <=> peritoneal
peroneum <=> peroneal
phalanges <=> phalangeal
phallus <=> phallic
pharynx <=> pharyngeal
pia <=> pial
pollex (thumb) <=> pollical
prostate <=> prostatic
rectum <=> rectal
retina <=> retinal
scrotum <=> scrotal
skin <=> cutaneous or dermal
sphincter <=> sphincteric
spine <=> spinal or vertebral
spleen <=> splenic or lienal or splanchnic or splenial
stomach <=> gastric
subcutis <=> subcutaneous
synovium <=> synovial
tear <=> lacrimal
testis or testicle <=> testicular
thalamus <=> thalamic
thorax <=> thoracic
throat <=> glottal
thymus <=> thymic
tongue <=> lingual or glossal or glottic
tooth or teeth <=> dental
trachea <=> tracheal
ureter <=> ureteral or ureteric
uterus <=> uterine
vagina <=> vaginal
vein <=> venous
ventricle <=> ventricular
vesicle (organelle, not to be confused with vesica or bladder) <=> vesicular
vessel <=> vascular
vulva <=> vulvar or vulval

---

In June, 2014, my book, entitled Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: Keys to Understanding and Treating the Common Diseases was published by Elsevier. The book builds the argument that our best chance of curing the common diseases will come from studying and curing the rare diseases.

I urge you to read more about my book. There's a generous preview of the book at the Google Books site. If you like the book, please request your librarian to purchase a copy of this book for your library or reading room.

- Jules J. Berman, Ph.D., M.D. tags: common disease, orphan disease, orphan drugs, rare disease, subsets of disease, disease genetics, genetics of complex disease, genetics of common diseases, cryptic disease, terminology pitfalls and confusing terminology, adjectives, anatomic adjectival forms, medical terminology, nomenclature, pathology, synonyms, plesionyms, public domain, listing, list

Precancers: counter-arguments

This blog continues a collection of essays on precancer.

The bulk of funding in the cancer field is directed toward the most frequently occurring, most highly recognizable cancers that are responsible for the greatest number of cancer deaths in the U.S. population (e.g., lung, colon, breast, and prostate cancers). Never mind that mortality from these common cancers has scarcely budged since the War on Cancer began (in the 70s).

Precancers are the lesions that precede the development of cancers. If we developed effective treatments for precancers, we would virtually eradicate cancer. I have been a precancer activist for decades. During that time, I've listened to countless arguments in favor of the status quo (developing treatments for advanced-staged common cancers) and against funding for the precancers.

The arguments against precancer research usually boil down to non-existence arguments (precancers don't even exist), irrelevance arguments (not our job), impracticality arguments (it just isn't practical to treat the precancers), or priority arguments (just about everything else is more important).

I thought it might be useful to lay out all the anti-precancer arguments here, and I can respond to them in future blogs.

Non-existence arguments:

1. There is no such thing as a precancer. The lesions that are called precancers are simply early (or small) cancers.

2. The transition from precancer to cancer is characterized by the acquisition of invasiveness. However, there is no practical way to determine the precise moment that invasiveness is acquired by a lesion. Therefore, there is no practical method to reliably distinguish a precancer from a cancer in every instance (i.e., there is no way to be confident that a lesion has not acquired the ability to invade). Therefore, precancers have no validity as biological entities.

3. There are many genetic and morphological disparities among the different recognized precancers. Since these lesions seem to have no common properties, other than the defining property of "cancer precedence", it hardly seems as though they should be assigned any biological class.

Irrelevance arguments:

4. The mission of the National Cancer Institute, the primary funding agency for cancer research in the U.S. is to develop cures for cancer, not precancer. If precancers were as important as you say they are, there would be a National Precancer Institute. But there isn't.

5. Precancers regress spontaneously. Why should we try to develop treatments for a disease that usually resolves without treatment?

6. Precancer research is just one aspect of cancer prevention, because when the precancer is eliminated, you prevent the cancer. Cancer prevention is an adequately funded area of cancer research, so we really do not need to assign any special funding to precancer research.

Low-priority argument:

7. People are dying from malignant tumors every day. Even if we could prevent cancers, we cannot abandon our responsibility to cancer patients by diverting our limited resources to the precancers.

Impracticality argument:

8. Treating precancers is not feasible for the majority of precancerous lesions that occur in humans. Reducing the incidence of cervical cancer by treating cervical precancer was possible only because the cervix can be inspected and sampled. There is no equivalent method to find and excise the precancerous lesions of pancreas, lung, prostate and breast. Therefore, procedures to detect and treat most precancers are not practical.

Rebuttals follow.

- Copyright (C) 2008 Jules J. Berman

---

In June, 2014, my book, entitled Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: Keys to Understanding and Treating the Common Diseases was published by Elsevier. The book builds the argument that our best chance of curing the common diseases will come from studying and curing the rare diseases.

I urge you to read more about my book. There's a generous preview of the book at the Google Books site.

tags: common disease, orphan disease, orphan drugs, genetics of disease, disease genetics, rules of disease biology, rare disease, pathology, preneoplasia, premalignant, preneoplastic, incipient neoplasia, pre-cancer, dysplasia, metaplasia, intraepithelial neoplasia, premalignancy, premalignancies, precancers, precancerous, pre-cancer, early cancer, developing cancer, carcinogenesis, cancer development, cancer staging, politics of disease, disease funding, disease geneticfs, cancer genetics, tumor biology

How are diseases named?

Is there a general rule for naming human diseases? No. Here is a list of some of the many ways by which diseases get their names.

1 As an an expression of a characteristic pathologic process (e.g., muscular dystrophy)

2 For the physical agent that produced the disease (e.g., plumbism)

3 For a group of people who were at high risk for the disease (e.g., Legionnaires' Disease, named after a group of conventioneers who succumbed in an early outbreak)

4 For a molecule found in diseased cells (e.g. amyloidosis, prion disease)

5 For a geographic region in which occurrences of the disease are concentrated (e.g.,Tangier Disease from Tangier Island, Maryland)

6 For the geographic spot from which a widespread epidemic emanated (e.g., Lyme disease from Lyme, New York)

7 For a striking clinical feature of the disease (e.g.,sleeping sickness) )

8 As a crude and insensitive comparison to an non-human object (e.g., gargoylism, ichthyosis with confetti, happy puppet syndrome)

9 As a literary metaphor (e.g., Pickwickian syndrome, Mad Hatter's disease, Alice in Wonderland syndrome, Job's syndrome)

10 For a striking morphologic feature (e.g., sickle cell anemia)

11 For a patient who had the disease (e.g., Lou Gehrig disease)

12 For physician or scientist who treated, described or researched the disease (e.g., Hodgkin disease, Cushing disease, Kaposi sarcoma)

13 As a witty but unhelpful acronym (e.g. CATCH 22 = cardiac abnormality,abnormal facies, t-cell deficit due to thymic hypoplasia, cleft palate, hypocalcemia resulting from a deletion on chromosome 22)

14 As a trope or descriptive metaphor from any existing language (e.g., Moyamoya disease derives from "moyamoya" meaning "puff of smoke" in Japanese,for the characteristic tangle of tiny cerebral vessels seen on x-ray)

15 As a token of Greek or Latin scholarship (e.g., pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta)

16 As a somewhat obscure and trivial fact that would be understandable only to experts (e.g., one and a half syndrome, which refers to a specific neurologic condition in which one eye acquires movement deficits, while the other eye acquires half of those deficits)

17 As inscrutable combinations of one or more of the above (e.g., the wistful-sounding "floating-harbor syndrome," named by combining the hospital in which one of the first case appeared, Boston Floating Hospital, and for a second hospital in which another case appeared, Harbor General Hospital in Torrance, California)

This list was taken from my book, Biomedical Informatics (List 7.3.1).

---

In June, 2014, my book, entitled Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: Keys to Understanding and Treating the Common Diseases was published by Elsevier. The book builds the argument that our best chance of curing the common diseases will come from studying and curing the rare diseases.

I urge you to read more about my book. There's a generous preview of the book at the Google Books site. If you like the book, please request your librarian to purchase a copy of this book for your library or reading room.

- Jules J. Berman, Ph.D., M.D. tags: common disease, orphan disease, orphan drugs, genetics of disease, disease genetics, rules of disease biology, rare disease, medical nomenclature, names of diseases, disease terminology, pathology, logophile, medical metaphor, medical terminology, pathologic process, pathophysiology, anatomic pathology, naming diseases, names of diseases, literary medicine, history of medicine

Zipf law for surgical pathology

In almost every segment of life, a small number of items usually account for the bulk of the observed activities. Though there are millions of authors, a relatively small number of authors account for the bulk of the books sold (think J.K. Rowling). A small number of diseases account for the bulk of deaths (think cardiovascular disease and cancer). A few phyla account for the bulk of the diversity of animals on earth (think arthropods). A few hundred words account for the bulk of all word occurrences in literature (think in, be, a, an, the, are). This phenomenon was observed and described by George Kingsley Zipf, who devised Zipf's law as a mathematical description. Wikipedia has an excellent discussion of Zipf's law.

Zipf's law applies to the diagnoses rendered in a pathology department. I helped write an early paper wherein three years' worth of surgical pathology reports, for a a university-associated hospital, were collected and reviewed.

There were 64,921 diagnostic entries (averaging 1.6 SNOMED codes per specimen and 1.4 specimens per patient), that were accounted for by 1,998 different morphologic diagnoses. A mere 21 diagnostic entities accounted for 50% of the code occurrences. 265 entities accounted for 90% of the code occurrences, indicating that the diagnostic efforts of pathology departments are primarily devoted to a small fraction of the many thousands of described pathologic entities.

This paper, published in 1994, is available for review

-Jules J. Berman

---

In June, 2014, my book, entitled Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: Keys to Understanding and Treating the Common Diseases was published by Elsevier. The book builds the argument that our best chance of curing the common diseases will come from studying and curing the rare diseases.

I urge you to read more about my book. There's a generous preview of the book at the Google Books site.

tags: common disease, orphan disease, orphan drugs, genetics of disease, disease genetics, rules of disease biology, rare disease, pathology, anatomic pathology, medical nomenclature