An ontological foundation for ocular phenotypes and rare eye diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optical accessibility of the eye and technological advances in ophthalmic diagnostics have put ophthalmology at the forefront of data-driven medicine. The focus of this study is rare eye disorders, a group of conditions whose clinical heterogeneity and geographic dispersion make data-driven, evidence-based practice particularly challenging. Inter-institutional collaboration and information sharing is crucial but the lack of standardised terminology poses an important barrier. Ontologies are computational tools that include sets of vocabulary terms arranged in hierarchical structures. They can be used to provide robust terminology standards and to enhance data interoperability. Here, we discuss the development of the ophthalmology-related component of two well-established biomedical ontologies, the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO; includes signs, symptoms and investigation findings) and the Orphanet Rare Disease Ontology (ORDO; includes rare disease nomenclature/nosology). METHODS: A variety of approaches were used including automated matching to existing resources and extensive manual curation. To achieve the latter, a study group including clinicians, patient representatives and ontology developers from 17 countries was formed. A broad range of terms was discussed and validated during a dedicated workshop attended by 60 members of the group. RESULTS: A comprehensive, structured and well-defined set of terms has been agreed on including 1106 terms relating to ocular phenotypes (HPO) and 1202 terms relating to rare eye disease nomenclature (ORDO). These terms and their relevant annotations can be accessed in http://www.human-phenotype-ontology.org/ and http://www.orpha.net/ ; comments, corrections, suggestions and requests for new terms can be made through these websites. This is an ongoing, community-driven endeavour and both HPO and ORDO are regularly updated. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first effort of such scale to provide terminology standards for the rare eye disease community. We hope that this work will not only improve coding and standardise information exchange in clinical care and research, but also it will catalyse the transition to an evidence-based precision ophthalmology paradigm.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".