Validation of an ontological medical decision support system for patient treatment using a repository of patient data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we begin by presenting OMeD, a medical decision support system, and argue for its value over purely probabilistic approaches that reason about patients for time-critical decision scenarios. We then progress to present Holmes, a Hybrid Ontological and Learning MEdical System which supports decision making about patient treatment. This system is introduced in order to cope with the case of missing data. We demonstrate its effectiveness by operating on an extensive set of real-world patient health data from the CDC, applied to the decision-making scenario of administering sleeping pills. In particular, we clarify how the combination of semantic, ontological representations, and probabilistic reasoning together enable the proposal of effective patient treatments. Our focus is thus on presenting an approach for interpreting medical data in the context of real-time decision making. This constitutes a comprehensive framework for the design of medical recommendation systems for potential use by medical professionals and patients both, with the end result being personalized patient treatment. We conclude with a discussion of the value of our particular approach for such diverse considerations as coping with misinformation provided by patients, performing effectively in time-critical environments where real-time decisions are necessary, and potential applications facilitating patient information gathering.
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 | 0.018 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".