Extending and encoding existing biological terminologies and datasets for use in the reasoned semantic web
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical phenotypes and disease-risk stratification are most often determined through the direct observations of clinicians in conjunction with published standards and guidelines, where the clinical expert is the final arbiter of the patient's classification. While this "human" approach is highly desirable in the context of personalized and optimal patient care, it is problematic in a healthcare research setting because the basis for the patient's classification is not transparent, and likely not reproducible from one clinical expert to another. This sits in opposition to the rigor required to execute, for example, Genome-wide association analyses and other high-throughput studies where a large number of variables are being compared to a complex disease phenotype. Most clinical classification systems and are not structured for automated classification, and similarly, clinical data is generally not represented in a form that lends itself to automated integration and interpretation. Here we apply Semantic Web technologies to the problem of automated, transparent interpretation of clinical data for use in high-throughput research environments, and explore migration-paths for existing data and legacy semantic standards. RESULTS: Using a dataset from a cardiovascular cohort collected two decades ago, we present a migration path - both for the terminologies/classification systems and the data - that enables rich automated clinical classification using well-established standards. This is achieved by establishing a simple and flexible core data model, which is combined with a layered ontological framework utilizing both logical reasoning and analytical algorithms to iteratively "lift" clinical data through increasingly complex layers of interpretation and classification. We compare our automated analysis to that of the clinical expert, and discrepancies are used to refine the ontological models, finally arriving at ontologies that mirror the expert opinion of the individual clinical researcher. Other discrepancies, however, could not be as easily modeled, and we evaluate what information we are lacking that would allow these discrepancies to be resolved in an automated manner. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the combination of semantically-explicit data, logically rigorous models of clinical guidelines, and publicly-accessible Semantic Web Services, can be used to execute automated, rigorous and reproducible clinical classifications with an accuracy approaching that of an expert. Discrepancies between the manual and automatic approaches reveal, as expected, that clinicians do not always rigorously follow established guidelines for classification; however, we demonstrate that "personalized" ontologies may represent a re-usable and transparent approach to modeling individual clinical expertise, leading to more reproducible science.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 it