The Evidence-base for Using Ontologies and Semantic Integration Methodologies to Support Integrated Chronic Disease Management in Primary and Ambulatory Care: Realist Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most chronic diseases are managed in primary and ambulatory care. The chronic care model (CCM) suggests a wide range of community, technological, team and patient factors contribute to effective chronic disease management. Ontologies have the capability to enable formalised linkage of heterogeneous data sources as might be found across the elements of the CCM. OBJECTIVE: To describe the evidence base for using ontologies and other semantic integration methods to support chronic disease management. METHOD: We reviewed the evidence-base for the use of ontologies and other semantic integration methods within and across the elements of the CCM. We report them using a realist review describing the context in which the mechanism was applied, and any outcome measures. RESULTS: Most evidence was descriptive with an almost complete absence of empirical research and important gaps in the evidence-base. We found some use of ontologies and semantic integration methods for community support of the medical home and for care in the community. Ubiquitous information technology (IT) and other IT tools were deployed to support self-management support, use of shared registries, health behavioural models and knowledge discovery tools to improve delivery system design. Data quality issues restricted the use of clinical data; however there was an increased use of interoperable data and health system integration. CONCLUSIONS: Ontologies and semantic integration methods are emergent with limited evidence-base for their implementation. However, they have the potential to integrate the disparate community wide data sources to provide the information necessary for effective chronic disease management.
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 | 0.020 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".