MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030264436 · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s17564

Clinical vocabulary as a boundary object in multidisciplinary care management of multiple chemical sensitivity, a complex and chronic condition

2011· article· en· W2030264436 on OpenAlex
Tara Sampalli, Michael Shepherd, Jack Duffy

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachTerminologyVocabularyMedicineMultiple chemical sensitivityHealth careObject (grammar)Boundary (topology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsMathematicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that accurate and timely communication between multidisciplinary clinicians involved in the care of complex and chronic health conditions is often challenging. The domain knowledge for these conditions is heterogeneous, with poorly categorized, unstructured, and inconsistent clinical vocabulary. The potential of boundary object as a technique to bridge communication gaps is explored in this study. METHODS: A standardized and controlled clinical vocabulary was developed as a boundary object in the domain of a complex and chronic health condition, namely, multiple chemical sensitivity, to improve communication among multidisciplinary clinicians. A convenience sample of 100 patients with a diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity, nine multidisciplinary clinicians involved in the care of patients with multiple chemical sensitivity, and 36 clinicians in the community participated in the study. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of the multidisciplinary and inconsistent vocabulary was standardized using the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms (SNOMED(®) CT as a reference terminology. Over 80% of the multidisciplinary clinicians agreed on the overall usefulness of having a controlled vocabulary as a boundary object. Over 65% of clinicians in the community agreed on the overall usefulness of the vocabulary. CONCLUSION: The results from this study are promising and will be further evaluated in the domain of another complex chronic condition, ie, chronic pain. The study was conducted as a preliminary analysis for developing a boundary object in a heterogeneous domain of knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.321 · 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