Human Disease Ontology 2018 update: classification, content and workflow expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Human Disease Ontology (DO) (http://www.disease-ontology.org), database has undergone significant expansion in the past three years. The DO disease classification includes specific formal semantic rules to express meaningful disease models and has expanded from a single asserted classification to include multiple-inferred mechanistic disease classifications, thus providing novel perspectives on related diseases. Expansion of disease terms, alternative anatomy, cell type and genetic disease classifications and workflow automation highlight the updates for the DO since 2015. The enhanced breadth and depth of the DO's knowledgebase has expanded the DO's utility for exploring the multi-etiology of human disease, thus improving the capture and communication of health-related data across biomedical databases, bioinformatics tools, genomic and cancer resources and demonstrated by a 6.6× growth in DO's user community since 2015. The DO's continual integration of human disease knowledge, evidenced by the more than 200 SVN/GitHub releases/revisions, since previously reported in our DO 2015 NAR paper, includes the addition of 2650 new disease terms, a 30% increase of textual definitions, and an expanding suite of disease classification hierarchies constructed through defined logical axioms.
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 | 0.022 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
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".