Literature review of SNOMED CT use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to report on the use of the systematised nomenclature of medicine clinical terms (SNOMED CT) by providing an overview of published papers. METHODS: Published papers on SNOMED CT between 2001 and 2012 were identified using PubMed and Embase databases using the keywords 'systematised nomenclature of medicine' and 'SNOMED CT'. For each paper the following characteristics were retrieved: SNOMED CT focus category (ie, indeterminate, theoretical, pre-development/design, implementation and evaluation/commodity), usage category (eg, prospective content coverage, used to classify or code in a study), medical domain and country. RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 488 papers. A comparison between the papers published between 2001-6 and 2007-12 showed an increase in every SNOMED CT focus category. The number of papers classified as 'theoretical' increased from 46 to 78, 'pre-development/design' increased from 61 to 173 and 'implementation' increased from 10 to 34. Papers classified as 'evaluation/commodity' only started to appear from 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies focused on 'theoretical' and 'pre-development/design'. This is still encouraging as SNOMED CT is being harmonized with other standardized terminologies and is being evaluated to determine the content coverage of local terms, which is usually one of the first steps towards adoption. Most implementations are not published in the scientific literature, requiring a look beyond the scientific literature to gain insights into SNOMED CT implementations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".