Does GEM-encoding clinical practice guidelines improve the quality of knowledge bases? A study with the rule-based formalism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to determine whether the GEM-encoding step could improve the representation of clinical practice guidelines as formalized knowledge bases. We used the 1999 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension, chosen as the knowledge source in the ASTI project. We first clarified semantic ambiguities of therapeutic sequences recommended in the guideline by proposing an interpretative framework of therapeutic strategies. Then, after a formalization step to standardize the terms used to characterize clinical situations, we created the GEM-encoded instance of the guideline. We developed a module for the automatic derivation of a rule base, BR-GEM, from the instance. BR-GEM was then compared to the rule base, BR-ASTI, embedded within the critic mode of ASTI, and manually built by two physicians from the same Canadian guideline. As compared to BR-ASTI, BR-GEM is more specific and covers more clinical situations. When evaluated on 10 patient cases, the GEM-based approach led to promising results.
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 | 0.037 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".