Exploiting Semantic Web Technologies to Develop OWL-Based Clinical Practice Guideline Execution Engines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computerizing paper-based CPG and then executing them can provide evidence-informed decision support to physicians at the point of care. Semantic web technologies especially web ontology language (OWL) ontologies have been profusely used to represent computerized CPG. Using semantic web reasoning capabilities to execute OWL-based computerized CPG unties them from a specific custom-built CPG execution engine and increases their shareability as any OWL reasoner and triple store can be utilized for CPG execution. However, existing semantic web reasoning-based CPG execution engines suffer from lack of ability to execute CPG with high levels of expressivity, high cognitive load of computerization of paper-based CPG and updating their computerized versions. In order to address these limitations, we have developed three CPG execution engines based on OWL 1 DL, OWL 2 DL and OWL 2 DL + semantic web rule language (SWRL). OWL 1 DL serves as the base execution engine capable of executing a wide range of CPG constructs, however for executing highly complex CPG the OWL 2 DL and OWL 2 DL + SWRL offer additional executional capabilities. We evaluated the technical performance and medical correctness of our execution engines using a range of CPG. Technical evaluations show the efficiency of our CPG execution engines in terms of CPU time and validity of the generated recommendation in comparison to existing CPG execution engines. Medical evaluations by domain experts show the validity of the CPG-mediated therapy plans in terms of relevance, safety, and ordering for a wide range of patient scenarios.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".