A Methodology for Encoding Problem Lists with SNOMED CT in General Practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a methodology for encoding problem lists used in general practice with SNOMED CT. Our intent is to help general practitioners to incorporate SNOMED CT into their existing Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems with minimal disruption as a first step, thus allowing them to assess its impact prior to full-scale conversion. We started with 1,713 original unique terms that made up the problem lists from the general practice EMR used in the study. We ended with 1,468 unique concepts after two cycles of matching and revisions that led to 1,347 or ~92% successful matches. The remaining terms were revised to tease out modifiers or secondary concepts that could be used to provide equivalency through post-coordination. While skeptics of reference terminology systems often balk at their unwieldy size and complexity for local adoption, this study has demonstrated that, using our methodology, it is possible to create a manageable subset of SNOMED concepts for problem lists used in general practice with immediate tangible value.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".