Automatic detection and resolution of measurement-unit conflicts in aggregated data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement-unit conflicts are a perennial problem in integrative research domains such as clinical meta-analysis. As multi-national collaborations grow, as new measurement instruments appear, and as Linked Open Data infrastructures become increasingly pervasive, the number of such conflicts will similarly increase. METHODS: We propose a generic approach to the problem of (a) encoding measurement units in datasets in a machine-readable manner, (b) detecting when a dataset contained mixtures of measurement units, and (c) automatically converting any conflicting units into a desired unit, as defined for a given study. RESULTS: We utilized existing ontologies and standards for scientific data representation, measurement unit definition, and data manipulation to build a simple and flexible Semantic Web Service-based approach to measurement-unit harmonization. A cardiovascular patient cohort in which clinical measurements were recorded in a number of different units (e.g., mmHg and cmHg for blood pressure) was automatically classified into a number of clinical phenotypes, semantically defined using different measurement units. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that through a combination of semantic standards and frameworks, unit integration problems can be automatically detected and resolved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".