Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it