A Comparison of Mobile Rule Engines for Reasoning on Semantic Web Based Health Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semantic Web technology is used extensively in the health domain, due to its ability to specify expressive, domain-specific data, as well as its capacity to facilitate data integration between heterogeneous, health-related sources. In the health domain, mobile devices are an essential part of patient self-management approaches, where local clinical decision support is applied to ensure that patients receive timely clinical findings. Currently, increases in mobile device capabilities have enabled the deployment of Semantic Web technologies on mobile platforms, enabling the consumption of rich, semantically described health data. To make this semantic health data available to local decision support as well, Semantic Web reasoning should be deployed on mobile platforms. However, there is currently a lack of software solutions and performance analysis of mobile, Semantic Web reasoning engines. This paper presents and compares the mobile benchmarks of 4 reasoning engines, applied on a dataset and rule set for patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF). In particular, these benchmarks investigate the scalability of the mobile reasoning processes, and study reasoning performance for different process flows in decision support. For the purpose of these benchmarks, we extended a number of existing rule engines and RDF stores with Semantic Web reasoning capabilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".