LAUSR

Contradictions as a data quality indicator are typically understood as impossible combinations of values in interdependent data items. While the handling of a single dependency between two data items is well established, for more complex interdependencies, there is not yet a common notation or structured evaluation method established to our knowledge. For the definition of such contradictions, specific biomedical domain knowledge is required, while informatics domain knowledge is responsible for the efficient implementation in assessment tools. We propose a notation of contradiction patterns that reflects the provided and required information by the different domains. We consider three parameters (α, β, θ): the number of interdependent items as α, the number of contradictory dependencies defined by domain experts as β, and the minimal number of required Boolean rules to assess these contradictions as θ. Inspection of the contradiction patterns in existing R packages for data quality assessments shows that all six examined packages implement the (2,1,1) class. We investigate more complex contradiction patterns in the biobank and COVID-19 domains showing that the minimum number of Boolean rules might be significantly lower than the number of described contradictions. While there might be a different number of contradictions formulated by the domain experts, we are confident that such a notation and structured analysis of the contradiction patterns helps to handle the complexity of multidimensional interdependencies within health data sets. A structured classification of contradiction checks will allow scoping of different contradiction patterns across multiple domains and effectively support the implementation of a generalized contradiction assessment framework.