MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980461251 · doi:10.2196/medinform.3023

OWLing Clinical Data Repositories With the Ontology Web Language

2014· article· en· W1980461251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raimundo Lozano-Rubí, Xavier Pastor, Esther Lozano

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebOntologyUnified Medical Language SystemInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The health sciences are based upon information. Clinical information is usually stored and managed by physicians with precarious tools, such as spreadsheets. The biomedical domain is more complex than other domains that have adopted information and communication technologies as pervasive business tools. Moreover, medicine continuously changes its corpus of knowledge because of new discoveries and the rearrangements in the relationships among concepts. This scenario makes it especially difficult to offer good tools to answer the professional needs of researchers and constitutes a barrier that needs innovation to discover useful solutions. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to design and implement a framework for the development of clinical data repositories, capable of facing the continuous change in the biomedicine domain and minimizing the technical knowledge required from final users. METHODS: We combined knowledge management tools and methodologies with relational technology. We present an ontology-based approach that is flexible and efficient for dealing with complexity and change, integrated with a solid relational storage and a Web graphical user interface. RESULTS: Onto Clinical Research Forms (OntoCRF) is a framework for the definition, modeling, and instantiation of data repositories. It does not need any database design or programming. All required information to define a new project is explicitly stated in ontologies. Moreover, the user interface is built automatically on the fly as Web pages, whereas data are stored in a generic repository. This allows for immediate deployment and population of the database as well as instant online availability of any modification. CONCLUSIONS: OntoCRF is a complete framework to build data repositories with a solid relational storage. Driven by ontologies, OntoCRF is more flexible and efficient to deal with complexity and change than traditional systems and does not require very skilled technical people facilitating the engineering of clinical software systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207